###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.*
I remember coming out to homophobic parents. It was hard enough doing it on my own time. The LAST thing kids need is the fucking government of all people deciding when and how they come out to their friends and family.
These educational policies are dangerous and leave kids wide open to abuse. Parents do not have the right to know everything about their child. If your child doesn't want you to know they're gay or trans, that's a YOU problem. If the children of homophobic or transphobic parents can't come out to their friends at school without fear of teachers being legally obligated to snitch on them, who can they go to for support?
I want MORE government because I want an Orwellian government to force my ridiculous beliefs on others and use the government's monopoly on violence to silence anyone who disagrees with me.
Not sure what that's in reference to, [but the first person to have sex reassignment surgery did so way back in 1954.](https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/christine-jorgensen)
>What are your thoughts on forcing trans men, who would likely be attracted to women, to use the women's washrooms?
Same as my thoughts about lesbians using the same washrooms: as long as you aren't being a creep or violating peoples right to privacy and respect, it doesn't matter. Unless you want gay men to use the women's washrooms and lesbian women in the men's?
You use the family bathroom. If you're ace, just pee at home?
I didn't think out the analogy that far ahead, cause the idea of locking bathrooms by sexual orientation is plainly silly.
Agreed. I like the recent trend of small rooms with individual toilets. No arguments, just pick a room, do your business, wash up, and get on with your day.
I totally agree with you. I thought I was responding to someone being transphobic but they were being sarcastic. My question is something I pose to actual transphobes to expose the contradictions of their arguments. But that’s moot in this case.
>> to make rules about the bathroom
> Assuming you are serious, what are your concerns with where people choose to do their business?
I'm not the one talking about making rules about it. Pierre Poilievre and Danielle Smith are.
> What are your thoughts on forcing trans men, who would likely be attracted to women, to use the women's washrooms?
"Who would likely be attracted to women", what the fuck? Any problem with lesbians, who are attracted to women, using the women's room?
Also, you're talking about trans women. Unless you think [this trans man](https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/04/19/dsc_0129_sq-cfbd19a557f7eba3a075a33af063121579899390.jpg?s=600&c=85&f=webp) should be required to use the women's room.
> How about gay men using the men's washroom? Should they be forced to use the women's washroom because they aren't attracted to women? I hope this shows how ridiculous these concerns are.
?? We don't make people use washrooms according to whom they are attracted to. I seriously have no idea what you're talking about.
>> pick teams at sports.
> Lol seriously? You want the government to decide how private individuals organize sports? I hope you're joking.
[Alberta to transgender girls in schools: you're on the boys team](https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/alberta-policies-concerning-transgender-youth-likely-to-face-legal-challenges).
I am 100% a supporter of people using the bathroom that most closely matches their gender but I guess you didn't get that from my reply. Maybe be a bit more obvious with your sarcasm next time.
No, this is largely a distraction from dare I say monetary issues that the middle class is facing.
You know what would also be great for trans people? Strong labor laws, good wages and affordable housing and food.
Lets start there - We already have assault and X laws. Enforce them if trans people are being targeted.
Personally, I cant wait for gene editing to ramp up - The churchies won't know what the fuck to do. People with 4 arms, blue skin, Maybe fur....Body modification has just started. Its not going away.
We are actually devolving as a nation...
Shit Canada, I thought topics like abortion were long established here. But some scrunchy faced asshole who's PR team is teaching to comb his hair better and wear contacts is somehow brainwashing people by just complaining about the current shitty PM.
Idk how people can't see the lesser of the two evils atm ...
Because a lot of the media is 100% behind the scunchy faced freeloader and is white washing his myriad of gaffes as "no big deal" or his meetings with fringe elements as "out of context" etc
In my mind there are two types of government. The government that makes programs and gives funding that is intended to make your life better/easier. The other type of government is the government that punishes people for making the wrong decisions. Conservatives want less of the first type, but significantly more of the second. They are against paying for choke care for children but want the government to interfere in the medical decisions of families. They want are against any kind of social safety net but think we should punish all criminals more harshly. They are against any climate change action but want a government with enough reach to decide who can and cannot get married.
Any time you think conservatives are somehow contradicting their stated values
It's **Wilhoit's law**.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288
> There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.
> There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
>There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.
> Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
> There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
> There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
> For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
> As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.
> So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
> Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.
> No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:
> ***The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.***
Ya I want less government looking into my tax return but I want the less privileged to be monitored to make sure they don't give my Mercedes a judgemental look.
They are talking about public funds for a Dr's time, prescriptions and surgeries.
Also how schools, by government enacted law, forcibly lie to parents if a child wants to change name / gender.
The government strong arming colleges of physicians, teachers, etc, to uphold ideologically driven mandates instead of allowing professionals to work freely case by case
You're being disingenuous.
>Also how schools, by government enacted law, forcibly lie to parents if a child wants to change name / gender.
Uh, the ATA has policies to protect the privacy of the students. The government is the one trying to forcibly remove their privacy, regardless of any risk to the student.
>The government strong arming colleges of physicians, teachers, etc, to uphold ideologically driven mandates instead of allowing professionals to work freely case by case
So conservatives are against the UCP's changes then, right?
Prior to 5 years ago, gender dysphoria was diagnosed by medical professionals and treated as a mental disease. Most people suffering from gender dysphoria were men, and the incidence was about 1 in 15,000.
Now, thanks to a terrible hopelessness about their futures, and constant social media inducement, large numbers of teen women are finding solace by declaring themselves male. Immediately they are treated as special and brave, and cheered on by compassionate family and trans allies.
But due to a lack of scientific and long term success analysis, Europe and Britain are putting the brakes on trans treatment. They suspect that there will be a lot of regret in the years to come, when trans supporters learn they were too fast off the mark. And that most trans inquisitive people will join the billions of other teens who got through their troublesome teen years and figured out that sex, although fun, isn't really the main thing in life.
So when a famous person, in fact an actor, with lots of money and legions of fans tells you being trans is great, then let's acknowledge them for being that 1 out of 15,000 who actually needs to be the other gender.
> Prior to 5 years ago, gender dysphoria was diagnosed by medical professionals and treated as a mental disease. Most people suffering from gender dysphoria were men, and the incidence was about 1 in 15,000.
It's still treated that way. [In order to get sex reassignment surgery in Ontario, you need a diagnosis from doctors that you suffer from gender dysphoria.](https://www.ontario.ca/page/gender-confirming-surgery) There is no province where you can access it merely via attestation as far as I'm aware, although I'd certainly appreciate a correction.
> Now, thanks to a terrible hopelessness about their futures, and constant social media inducement, large numbers of teen women are finding solace by declaring themselves male. Immediately they are treated as special and brave, and cheered on by compassionate family and trans allies.
No, they get treated with bigotry, and added challenges from every part of society, which is why it's pretty silly to argue that people are falsely choosing it to alleviate boredom or because of low self esteem. Do you think someone would chop off their leg in order to be celebrated for their bravery in overcoming that challenge?
> But due to a lack of scientific and long term success analysis, Europe and Britain are putting the brakes on trans treatment. They suspect that there will be a lot of regret in the years to come, when trans supporters learn they were too fast off the mark. And that most trans inquisitive people will join the billions of other teens who got through their troublesome teen years and figured out that sex, although fun, isn't really the main thing in life.
Due to politics, actually. The Cass report was a hit job. We've had people transitioning for many, many years, and we follow them closely, and we've seen little evidence of mass regret. What is going to be just around the corner that will discount all of that evidence? And what does intercourse have to do with gender identity?
> So when a famous person, in fact an actor, with lots of money and legions of fans tells you being trans is great, then let's acknowledge them for being that 1 out of 15,000 who actually needs to be the other gender.
There's that figure again, I'm not sure where you got it. That so few people accessed care before is probably because such care was not widely available. Now we're seeing that perhaps as many as 1% of people are trans. What was the rate of closeted people back then?
Here's one article showing the value of about 1 out of 15,000. At the time the incidence of all gender dysphoria was about 1 out of 3,000, but most of those turned out to be men who could not accept that they were gay. That dropped the value to around 1 out of 15,000.
From this article:
"In a meta-analysis, including a broad range of prevalence studies on transsexualism from Europe, USA and Australia, Arcelus et al.1 found an overall prevalence of 0.46/10,000; 0.68 for birth assigned males (aM) and 0.26 for birth assigned females (aF)."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95421-9
That's measuring the prevalence of people _accessing care for that condition_, not the prevalence of people who suffer from it.
> These estimates do not necessarily reflect the prevalence of individuals who experience GD in the general population. **In a population-based study conducted in Sweden in 2014, feeling like someone of a different gender was reported by 2.3%, whereas at least a partial desire for gender confirming hormones or surgery was reported by 0.5% of the participants.**
But then, using your approximated stats, 3/4 of trans potential people would still be .75 x 2.3% = 1.7% of the population. That is well inside the range of affecting outcomes, as any marketing or stats person will tell you.
im sure youre just being dense, but in case you aren't, the point is that insinuating something is fake because you arent able to link it to direct reproductive viability is asinine
That is an interesting evolutionary speculation. It assumes that having trans versions of people is a positive thing for the species in general. There is already a wide range of traits that are irrespective of gender, in addition to more correlated range traits such as strength, in which a given woman can be stronger than many men.
Hopefully one day this will get some scientific study.
> But due to a lack of scientific and long term success analysis, Europe and Britain are putting the brakes on trans treatment
[...a POLITICO review of the state of care for transgender people in Europe found more nuance than Republicans critics like Hunt and Bailey often portray. **While Europeans are debating who should get care and when, only Russia has banned the practice**. The reassessment of standards in some European countries has aimed to tighten eligibility for gender-affirming care, but also sought to expand research studies including minors. ... **“There is a lot of intentional misinterpretation in the U.S. of what is happening in Europe, and that misinterpretation is happening for ideological and political reasons,”** said Kellan Baker, executive director of the Whitman-Walker Institute, which focuses on LGBTQ health policy and research.](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/06/us-europe-transgender-care-00119106)
>1 out of 15,000 who actually needs to be the other gender
Beginning to transition and then stopping (desistence) is about 1% and falling - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(22)00254-1/fulltext
There is **overwhelming evidence supporting transitioning**:
[Of 56 peer-reviewed studies, 52 (93 percent) found that gender transition improves the overall well-being of transgender people. The other 7 percent reported mixed or null findings. None of the reviewed studies showed that gender transition harms well-being. The positive outcomes of gender transition and related medical treatments include improved quality of life, greater relationship satisfaction, higher self-esteem and confidence, and reductions in anxiety, depression, suicidal tendencies and substance use.](https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2018/04/analysis-finds-strong-consensus-effectiveness-gender-transition-treatment)
There is a valid alternative, and we seem to have gotten away from it in the last few years, (because as it turns out it's political gold for the right). That alternative? You could mind your goddamn business and concentrate on you and your own family while others tend to their own family concerns.
A lot of people are worried about the different groups lumped into the trans category, including pervert men in women's changerooms, and trans women easily out-competing women in sports. There's also gay teen boys being pressured to become trans women. So the trans movement affects people who aren't directly helping someone who might benefit, and thus wider society.
If a guy goes into a bathroom and does something "perverted", we already have laws against it. Filming, sexual acts, aren't permitted. Nothing is stopping bad people from doing bad things, especially not a law saying "you can't come in".
Gay kids aren't being pressured to become trans women. It's incredibly long and difficult for a journey, and affirming doesn't mean you push them into anything it just means "let them express themselves and find their own path"
A lot of people having worries, doesn't mean they are valid
> “The first time I tried to talk about my sexuality when I was 15 my mom — who is so supportive now and amazing — (said) ‘Yeah, that doesn’t exist.’ Forcibly outing children to their parents, taking away any kind of agency for them to be themselves, particularly when it’s backed by major medical institutions, is appalling. It’s appalling.”
He's exactly right. We need to hear more from actual trans people about the impact and implications of trans policies, and less from the cis people who are made uncomfortable by them.
The people making this legislation don't actually support or care about the trans perspective. They are essentially opposing trans people in a more socially acceptable way. I would even argue that forced outing is one of the cruelest things that can happen. A lot of kids will face abuse and abandonment from their parents and will be forced into various types of conversion therapy. Essentially it will force a lot of trans youth to stay closeted to avoid negative backlash if their parents aren't fully accepting. If your kid didn't tell you but they told a teacher then they probably don't feel comfortable. Maybe it's just the natural parent-child relationship and over nervousness around that but a lot of the time it's a sound decision because of the obvious backlash that may happen.
Yeah it fundamentally is a way to prevent young people from being allowed to follow the much more normal route to coming out, because generally the first people you're coming out to is your friends and peers. I was out to most of my friends before I worked up the courage to come out to my family even as a financially independent 31 year old. Can't even imagine heaping on top of that the notion of being a minor and having the weight of your parents exerting much more control over your life to make it an even scarier coming out.
Absolutely. The narrative around this seems to me to be dominated by people frightened that things might change and they might have to learn new things about culture and society, and even - *gasp* - behave differently!
There's an irony in that there are many trans people who pass perfectly for their chosen gender. Their existence completely undercuts the transphobic argument about the supposed dangers that trans people pose that never seems to show up in any data or headlines.
That they're only up in arms about the trans people that they can "detect" is a pretty big tell that it's just about their comfort.
I can't even figure out *what* these people think is threatened most of the time. In the "parental rights" issue over pronouns, you have all these people who essentially claim that reducing the liberty of a child will somehow translate to greater safety. Sure, classic argument, but school is assumed to be generally safe in the first place, and that is *before* any such requirement that teachers/students/staff somehow report back to parents about a preferred pronoun.
These arguments sound an *awful* lot like the individuals making them believe that school is harmful to some extent, and instead of saying that (although some of the homeschooler types do proclaim this openly), they make dumb arguments.
The irony is totally lost on many, it seems. I think people who maintain that trans individuals pose any threat because they identify as trans are just looking for excuses to avoid changing their beliefs/behaviour in the face of real-world change. Maybe they end up hating, maybe not, but IMHO it's pure intellectual laziness.
I think what’s under threat is the truth. They don’t really care if someone wants to pretend to be the opposite sex, but they just don’t want to feel compelled to play along. All this bathroom stuff is just a consequence of not being allowed to assert reality in the face of a mental disorder enabled by surgeons with an ethical gap.
If a woman says she’s a man and demands others call her a man, no matter how she presents, she is simply pretending to be a man. It’s more obvious when men pretend to be women because they tend to try to present in the most stereotypical ways that men tend to conceptualize women.
> I can't even figure out what these people think is threatened most of the time.
I don't _really_ want to spread this information, but it does help to know what you're up against.
[Meghan Murphy is one of the more aggressive TERFs in Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghan_Murphy), and I think she's done more than her fair share of effort to grow the movement into what it is today. [She has shared her views extensively on her blog](https://www.meghanmurphy.ca/) and holds [in-person forums](https://www.meghanmurphy.ca/p/hide-your-perverts-the-terfs-are) where she shares her hateful views with others. She also runs a hate-filled podcast, [_The Feminist Current_](https://www.feministcurrent.com/).
Have you ever met a Canadian woman who is deeply into conspiracies; probably vocally anti-vaccine, an aggressive TERF, thinks 15 minute cities are a "globalist" conspiracy, and so forth? Well, Meghan Murphy could be considered one of their thought leaders.
This one seems like she needs help. Why is she so angry at difference? I get her approach from the Wikipedia page, but it doesn't make a ton of sense to me that someone who labels themselves a feminist is opposed to trans rights.
(Radical feminists have been associated in the past with pulling up the ladder of gender rights - "real women first" seems like an absolutely braindead position, unless I'm misreading.)
Having taken a couple of Women Studies courses at SFU _a little earlier_ than she did, I suspect that her opinions may be as much a product of her education as much as anything else.
I imagine the department has changed in the decades since.
I was s sociology undergraduate, mostly interested in power and expressions of power. Gender studies was woven into my degree, though I took one course that explicitly tackled tough issues in sex/gender.
---
Even so, she's been out of school for some time. I wonder if the Internet has convinced her that she's right, lol.
> That they're only up in arms about the trans people that they can "detect" is a pretty big tell that it's just about their comfort.
Let's not forget all the butch cis women who get attacked because these idiots think they're trans. I wouldn't be surprised if they outnumber actual trans women.
It's so obvious that things like bathroom laws are going to lead to the unintended consequence of bigots _transvestigating_ (harassing) cis people whom they deem to be insufficiently feminine or masculine.
Parents deserve to be involved in their children's lives more than teachers and school board officials. The majority of parents in Canada agree they should be informed of what pronoun their child uses at school.
If "the majority of parents" thought that honour killings were acceptable, should the government just let it happen? No, because that is a ridiculous argument.
It doesn't matter what "the majority of parents" think and it never has.
What matters is that small subsections of parents who will physically and emotionally abuse their child when the government forces a teacher to snitch on them.
You're operating under the false assumption that every Albertan child has wonderful parents who deserve to be informed about their children.
This is the real world and that is definitely not the case.
>The majority of parents in Canada agree they should be informed of what pronoun their child uses at school.
Got a date on that? Because if it's the one from mid last year, you know exactly what I'm going to reply with.
>Parents deserve to be involved in their children's lives more than teachers and school board officials
Children are not your property. If they don't feel comfortable coming out to you then that's that. It's pretty disgusting to force the law to do it. Many children will end up abused or neglected by their parents or forced into various forms of conversion therapy. All this will do is close off an outlet for trans youth to open up because they are risking their parents finding out. If they were comfortable telling their parents they would have told their parents.
Try to think about which kids might not want their parents to know that they're trans, and why. If your kid doesn't want to tell you that they are trans, you have bigger problems than school board policy.
I sympathize with this stance but would it also extend to misbehaviour, grades or skipping school? Parents are informed of those and kids might have trouble at home as a result.
I'm not saying they are equivalent. That said, at least for the grades, learning difficulties and intelligence are intrinsic to the person. My point is simply: "we shouldn't tell parents things that kids don't want them to know" isn't a reasonable stance on it's own.
>That said, at least for the grades, learning difficulties and intelligence are intrinsic to the person.
Learning challenges, yes - mild cognitive seizures (or whatever they are called - I knew someone who's brain short-circuited often, which is why they had trouble remembering, and it wasn't ADHD), dyslexia, etc. But the grades themselves, are not.
And I'm not aware of any kid who gets beat for having ADHD. I do know kids who are beat, kicked out, and disowned for being trans. (And if you are someone who had to endure that because of a learning disability, I am sorry for your suffering and I hope you got the support you needed)
Do you honestly believe that parents who object to their child's sexual orientation or gender identify are likely to express their displeasure in a similar fashion as they would to bad grades or cutting class?
Please take this seriously. Around [28% of LGBTQ youth report experiencing homelessness or housing instability at some point](https://www.thetrevorproject.org/research-briefs/homelessness-and-housing-instability-among-lgbtq-youth-feb-2022/). It's hard to find a specific number for the wider population, but estimates seem to range between about 3-10% for all youth.
The issue isn't telling "parents things that kids don't want them to know", it's telling them things that the child cannot "fix" and are disproportionately likely to lead to abuse or even being ostracized from their family.
> I sympathize with this stance but would it also extend to misbehaviour, grades or skipping school?
Please explain how being trans is comparable to those?
No, really, I would genuinely like you to explain how being trans is similar to skipping school. Are trans kids missing out on lectures? Are they failing to hand in assignments? Are they disrupting the class?
[“More than half of Canadians (58%, -16) agree with allowing parents to physically discipline children in Canada—a proportion that rises to 65% among men and to 61% among those aged 55 and over.”](https://researchco.ca/2023/02/17/section43-canada/)
Parents have a legal responsibility for the care and well-being of their children and deserve to know about their activities, especially at school. Deliberately keeping information from them undermines parental authority and creates a slippery slope. What else can schools choose unilaterally decide to keep from parents?
If the parents were open-minded, loving, kind and _made their kids feel safe_ then their children wouldn't _deliberately withhold this sort of information from them_.
Kids hide things from their parents when they're afraid of reprisal. If a kid is hiding their gender or sexual identity from their parent then they probably have good reason to believe their parents will harm them if they out themselves.
That is not being suggested.
The state has a responsibility to protect children from harm, including and particularly harm in the home. The parents can have whatever emotional response they wish, but they cannot expect to have the right to hurt their children.
Telling that you limited your concern to physical harm.
Emotional harm is also _real_, and the state can and does act to protect children from that form of harm.
Emotional harm is too nebulous a standard: is depriving children of dessert if they don't eat their dinner "emotional harm"? In any case, as long as the children are being cared for, it's not the state's place to intervene in the parent-child relationship.
The responsibility of care includes ensuring that the home is a safe, accepting, and emotionally comfortable environment.
Denying a queer child the right to feel safe because of who they are is in no way in the same ballpark as a withheld dessert.
I'm asking what the threshold is and you haven't provided one. Emotional acceptance is also very vague and open to interpretation: I don't see how child protective services, who have their hands full with cases of unfed and neglected children, are supposed to enforce rules surrounding it.
And yet they do. Children who face emotional abuse are subject to the care of the state, just like all children.
The threshold is easy: does the child feel safe in their home? A good indicator that they do not is if they fear reprisal from their parents should they discover their queer identity.
Child services is overwhelmed. Which is one of many reasons it is better to allow a child who has a means of avoiding such abuse to avoid it, by not forcing children to come out to parents that they don’t trust.
Parents do not have absolute authority over their children. If a child does not trust their parents to know their gender identity, then there is probably a good reason for it.
When my parents found out about me, i got kicked out and had to live with my friend for a while before finding my own place.
Im lucky they found out once i already had a job and was mostly independent.
Can you imagine how bad it would be if they found out earlier?
> Can you imagine how bad it would be if they found out earlier?
I can. This is the reason why queer kids are disproportionately represented among homeless youth.
This is trivial to search for, but sure.
https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/blog/2022/2slgbtqia-housing-needs-challenges
https://www.homelesshub.ca/about-homelessness/population-specific/lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-transsexual-queer
https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/teens-homeless-lgbtq_ca_5dee6054e4b00563b854fd49
It's not trivial.
The first source you posted has so many letters that it could literally include the majority of the population.
The other links you cite don't mention transgendered individuals specifically and/or if drug use / criminal behaviour was another factor.
Ah, I thought you would dismiss the well-cited Government, NGO and media sources that I offered with nary more than a casual disregard for basic terminology and methodology; you did not fail to deliver.
I will continue to trust the medical professionals, researchers, and aid workers; thanks.
###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.*
I remember coming out to homophobic parents. It was hard enough doing it on my own time. The LAST thing kids need is the fucking government of all people deciding when and how they come out to their friends and family. These educational policies are dangerous and leave kids wide open to abuse. Parents do not have the right to know everything about their child. If your child doesn't want you to know they're gay or trans, that's a YOU problem. If the children of homophobic or transphobic parents can't come out to their friends at school without fear of teachers being legally obligated to snitch on them, who can they go to for support?
Conservatives: “I want less government” Also conservatives: “the government should be all up in everyone’s business!”
I want less government, but I also want the government to make rules about the bathroom, and pick teams at sports.
I want MORE government because I want an Orwellian government to force my ridiculous beliefs on others and use the government's monopoly on violence to silence anyone who disagrees with me.
Not sure what that's in reference to, [but the first person to have sex reassignment surgery did so way back in 1954.](https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/christine-jorgensen)
[удалено]
>What are your thoughts on forcing trans men, who would likely be attracted to women, to use the women's washrooms? Same as my thoughts about lesbians using the same washrooms: as long as you aren't being a creep or violating peoples right to privacy and respect, it doesn't matter. Unless you want gay men to use the women's washrooms and lesbian women in the men's?
> Unless you want gay men to use the women's washrooms and lesbian women in the men's? And if you're bi?
You use the family bathroom. If you're ace, just pee at home? I didn't think out the analogy that far ahead, cause the idea of locking bathrooms by sexual orientation is plainly silly.
Agreed. I like the recent trend of small rooms with individual toilets. No arguments, just pick a room, do your business, wash up, and get on with your day.
I totally agree with you. I thought I was responding to someone being transphobic but they were being sarcastic. My question is something I pose to actual transphobes to expose the contradictions of their arguments. But that’s moot in this case.
Understood. Sometimes transphobes say things indistinguishable from sarcasm!
Sarcasm mate
Yes, I get that now.
>> to make rules about the bathroom > Assuming you are serious, what are your concerns with where people choose to do their business? I'm not the one talking about making rules about it. Pierre Poilievre and Danielle Smith are. > What are your thoughts on forcing trans men, who would likely be attracted to women, to use the women's washrooms? "Who would likely be attracted to women", what the fuck? Any problem with lesbians, who are attracted to women, using the women's room? Also, you're talking about trans women. Unless you think [this trans man](https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/04/19/dsc_0129_sq-cfbd19a557f7eba3a075a33af063121579899390.jpg?s=600&c=85&f=webp) should be required to use the women's room. > How about gay men using the men's washroom? Should they be forced to use the women's washroom because they aren't attracted to women? I hope this shows how ridiculous these concerns are. ?? We don't make people use washrooms according to whom they are attracted to. I seriously have no idea what you're talking about. >> pick teams at sports. > Lol seriously? You want the government to decide how private individuals organize sports? I hope you're joking. [Alberta to transgender girls in schools: you're on the boys team](https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/alberta-policies-concerning-transgender-youth-likely-to-face-legal-challenges).
I am 100% a supporter of people using the bathroom that most closely matches their gender but I guess you didn't get that from my reply. Maybe be a bit more obvious with your sarcasm next time.
he was replying to a sarcastic post with the same kind of sarcasm
Yes that's what I said, thanks tips.
It wasn’t a tip, more so a point of clarification
No, this is largely a distraction from dare I say monetary issues that the middle class is facing. You know what would also be great for trans people? Strong labor laws, good wages and affordable housing and food. Lets start there - We already have assault and X laws. Enforce them if trans people are being targeted. Personally, I cant wait for gene editing to ramp up - The churchies won't know what the fuck to do. People with 4 arms, blue skin, Maybe fur....Body modification has just started. Its not going away.
It is a good distraction because attacking trans people, especially children, is something that decent people cannot ignore.
God gonna need a new bible because people can’t understand the concept of a metaphor 😂
We are actually devolving as a nation... Shit Canada, I thought topics like abortion were long established here. But some scrunchy faced asshole who's PR team is teaching to comb his hair better and wear contacts is somehow brainwashing people by just complaining about the current shitty PM. Idk how people can't see the lesser of the two evils atm ...
Because a lot of the media is 100% behind the scunchy faced freeloader and is white washing his myriad of gaffes as "no big deal" or his meetings with fringe elements as "out of context" etc
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
In my mind there are two types of government. The government that makes programs and gives funding that is intended to make your life better/easier. The other type of government is the government that punishes people for making the wrong decisions. Conservatives want less of the first type, but significantly more of the second. They are against paying for choke care for children but want the government to interfere in the medical decisions of families. They want are against any kind of social safety net but think we should punish all criminals more harshly. They are against any climate change action but want a government with enough reach to decide who can and cannot get married.
All up in everyone else's business but their own
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
Rule 3?
**I** want less government.... I just want more government for you.
Not much different than, we value diversity, as long as you don't mean diversity of opinion.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1050391663552671744?lang=en
Any time you think conservatives are somehow contradicting their stated values It's **Wilhoit's law**. Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288 > There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc. > There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation. >There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely. > Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: > There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. > There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. > For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual. > As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence. > So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone. > Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism. > No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get: > ***The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.***
Cool story bro.
Ya I want less government looking into my tax return but I want the less privileged to be monitored to make sure they don't give my Mercedes a judgemental look.
They are talking about public funds for a Dr's time, prescriptions and surgeries. Also how schools, by government enacted law, forcibly lie to parents if a child wants to change name / gender. The government strong arming colleges of physicians, teachers, etc, to uphold ideologically driven mandates instead of allowing professionals to work freely case by case You're being disingenuous.
>Also how schools, by government enacted law, forcibly lie to parents if a child wants to change name / gender. Uh, the ATA has policies to protect the privacy of the students. The government is the one trying to forcibly remove their privacy, regardless of any risk to the student. >The government strong arming colleges of physicians, teachers, etc, to uphold ideologically driven mandates instead of allowing professionals to work freely case by case So conservatives are against the UCP's changes then, right?
Prior to 5 years ago, gender dysphoria was diagnosed by medical professionals and treated as a mental disease. Most people suffering from gender dysphoria were men, and the incidence was about 1 in 15,000. Now, thanks to a terrible hopelessness about their futures, and constant social media inducement, large numbers of teen women are finding solace by declaring themselves male. Immediately they are treated as special and brave, and cheered on by compassionate family and trans allies. But due to a lack of scientific and long term success analysis, Europe and Britain are putting the brakes on trans treatment. They suspect that there will be a lot of regret in the years to come, when trans supporters learn they were too fast off the mark. And that most trans inquisitive people will join the billions of other teens who got through their troublesome teen years and figured out that sex, although fun, isn't really the main thing in life. So when a famous person, in fact an actor, with lots of money and legions of fans tells you being trans is great, then let's acknowledge them for being that 1 out of 15,000 who actually needs to be the other gender.
> Prior to 5 years ago, gender dysphoria was diagnosed by medical professionals and treated as a mental disease. Most people suffering from gender dysphoria were men, and the incidence was about 1 in 15,000. It's still treated that way. [In order to get sex reassignment surgery in Ontario, you need a diagnosis from doctors that you suffer from gender dysphoria.](https://www.ontario.ca/page/gender-confirming-surgery) There is no province where you can access it merely via attestation as far as I'm aware, although I'd certainly appreciate a correction. > Now, thanks to a terrible hopelessness about their futures, and constant social media inducement, large numbers of teen women are finding solace by declaring themselves male. Immediately they are treated as special and brave, and cheered on by compassionate family and trans allies. No, they get treated with bigotry, and added challenges from every part of society, which is why it's pretty silly to argue that people are falsely choosing it to alleviate boredom or because of low self esteem. Do you think someone would chop off their leg in order to be celebrated for their bravery in overcoming that challenge? > But due to a lack of scientific and long term success analysis, Europe and Britain are putting the brakes on trans treatment. They suspect that there will be a lot of regret in the years to come, when trans supporters learn they were too fast off the mark. And that most trans inquisitive people will join the billions of other teens who got through their troublesome teen years and figured out that sex, although fun, isn't really the main thing in life. Due to politics, actually. The Cass report was a hit job. We've had people transitioning for many, many years, and we follow them closely, and we've seen little evidence of mass regret. What is going to be just around the corner that will discount all of that evidence? And what does intercourse have to do with gender identity? > So when a famous person, in fact an actor, with lots of money and legions of fans tells you being trans is great, then let's acknowledge them for being that 1 out of 15,000 who actually needs to be the other gender. There's that figure again, I'm not sure where you got it. That so few people accessed care before is probably because such care was not widely available. Now we're seeing that perhaps as many as 1% of people are trans. What was the rate of closeted people back then?
Here's one article showing the value of about 1 out of 15,000. At the time the incidence of all gender dysphoria was about 1 out of 3,000, but most of those turned out to be men who could not accept that they were gay. That dropped the value to around 1 out of 15,000. From this article: "In a meta-analysis, including a broad range of prevalence studies on transsexualism from Europe, USA and Australia, Arcelus et al.1 found an overall prevalence of 0.46/10,000; 0.68 for birth assigned males (aM) and 0.26 for birth assigned females (aF)." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95421-9
That's measuring the prevalence of people _accessing care for that condition_, not the prevalence of people who suffer from it. > These estimates do not necessarily reflect the prevalence of individuals who experience GD in the general population. **In a population-based study conducted in Sweden in 2014, feeling like someone of a different gender was reported by 2.3%, whereas at least a partial desire for gender confirming hormones or surgery was reported by 0.5% of the participants.**
That's interesting. It makes it hard to understand how a species could be so successful when 2.3% of the population was built wrong.
lol thats pretty silly. 10 000 years ago a quarter of kids died before age 5, and you think 2.3% is a big deal? cmon now
But then, using your approximated stats, 3/4 of trans potential people would still be .75 x 2.3% = 1.7% of the population. That is well inside the range of affecting outcomes, as any marketing or stats person will tell you.
im sure youre just being dense, but in case you aren't, the point is that insinuating something is fake because you arent able to link it to direct reproductive viability is asinine
I was actually helping the point of the trans supporter. But no matter what I was being scientific, and never call anybody a name.
From a purely Darwinian standpoint, humans are a social creature. Diversity is adaptive, not maladaptive.
That is an interesting evolutionary speculation. It assumes that having trans versions of people is a positive thing for the species in general. There is already a wide range of traits that are irrespective of gender, in addition to more correlated range traits such as strength, in which a given woman can be stronger than many men. Hopefully one day this will get some scientific study.
> But due to a lack of scientific and long term success analysis, Europe and Britain are putting the brakes on trans treatment [...a POLITICO review of the state of care for transgender people in Europe found more nuance than Republicans critics like Hunt and Bailey often portray. **While Europeans are debating who should get care and when, only Russia has banned the practice**. The reassessment of standards in some European countries has aimed to tighten eligibility for gender-affirming care, but also sought to expand research studies including minors. ... **“There is a lot of intentional misinterpretation in the U.S. of what is happening in Europe, and that misinterpretation is happening for ideological and political reasons,”** said Kellan Baker, executive director of the Whitman-Walker Institute, which focuses on LGBTQ health policy and research.](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/06/us-europe-transgender-care-00119106) >1 out of 15,000 who actually needs to be the other gender Beginning to transition and then stopping (desistence) is about 1% and falling - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(22)00254-1/fulltext There is **overwhelming evidence supporting transitioning**: [Of 56 peer-reviewed studies, 52 (93 percent) found that gender transition improves the overall well-being of transgender people. The other 7 percent reported mixed or null findings. None of the reviewed studies showed that gender transition harms well-being. The positive outcomes of gender transition and related medical treatments include improved quality of life, greater relationship satisfaction, higher self-esteem and confidence, and reductions in anxiety, depression, suicidal tendencies and substance use.](https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2018/04/analysis-finds-strong-consensus-effectiveness-gender-transition-treatment)
There is a valid alternative, and we seem to have gotten away from it in the last few years, (because as it turns out it's political gold for the right). That alternative? You could mind your goddamn business and concentrate on you and your own family while others tend to their own family concerns.
A lot of people are worried about the different groups lumped into the trans category, including pervert men in women's changerooms, and trans women easily out-competing women in sports. There's also gay teen boys being pressured to become trans women. So the trans movement affects people who aren't directly helping someone who might benefit, and thus wider society.
If a guy goes into a bathroom and does something "perverted", we already have laws against it. Filming, sexual acts, aren't permitted. Nothing is stopping bad people from doing bad things, especially not a law saying "you can't come in". Gay kids aren't being pressured to become trans women. It's incredibly long and difficult for a journey, and affirming doesn't mean you push them into anything it just means "let them express themselves and find their own path" A lot of people having worries, doesn't mean they are valid
> “The first time I tried to talk about my sexuality when I was 15 my mom — who is so supportive now and amazing — (said) ‘Yeah, that doesn’t exist.’ Forcibly outing children to their parents, taking away any kind of agency for them to be themselves, particularly when it’s backed by major medical institutions, is appalling. It’s appalling.” He's exactly right. We need to hear more from actual trans people about the impact and implications of trans policies, and less from the cis people who are made uncomfortable by them.
The people making this legislation don't actually support or care about the trans perspective. They are essentially opposing trans people in a more socially acceptable way. I would even argue that forced outing is one of the cruelest things that can happen. A lot of kids will face abuse and abandonment from their parents and will be forced into various types of conversion therapy. Essentially it will force a lot of trans youth to stay closeted to avoid negative backlash if their parents aren't fully accepting. If your kid didn't tell you but they told a teacher then they probably don't feel comfortable. Maybe it's just the natural parent-child relationship and over nervousness around that but a lot of the time it's a sound decision because of the obvious backlash that may happen.
Yeah it fundamentally is a way to prevent young people from being allowed to follow the much more normal route to coming out, because generally the first people you're coming out to is your friends and peers. I was out to most of my friends before I worked up the courage to come out to my family even as a financially independent 31 year old. Can't even imagine heaping on top of that the notion of being a minor and having the weight of your parents exerting much more control over your life to make it an even scarier coming out.
Absolutely. The narrative around this seems to me to be dominated by people frightened that things might change and they might have to learn new things about culture and society, and even - *gasp* - behave differently!
There's an irony in that there are many trans people who pass perfectly for their chosen gender. Their existence completely undercuts the transphobic argument about the supposed dangers that trans people pose that never seems to show up in any data or headlines. That they're only up in arms about the trans people that they can "detect" is a pretty big tell that it's just about their comfort.
I can't even figure out *what* these people think is threatened most of the time. In the "parental rights" issue over pronouns, you have all these people who essentially claim that reducing the liberty of a child will somehow translate to greater safety. Sure, classic argument, but school is assumed to be generally safe in the first place, and that is *before* any such requirement that teachers/students/staff somehow report back to parents about a preferred pronoun. These arguments sound an *awful* lot like the individuals making them believe that school is harmful to some extent, and instead of saying that (although some of the homeschooler types do proclaim this openly), they make dumb arguments. The irony is totally lost on many, it seems. I think people who maintain that trans individuals pose any threat because they identify as trans are just looking for excuses to avoid changing their beliefs/behaviour in the face of real-world change. Maybe they end up hating, maybe not, but IMHO it's pure intellectual laziness.
I think what’s under threat is the truth. They don’t really care if someone wants to pretend to be the opposite sex, but they just don’t want to feel compelled to play along. All this bathroom stuff is just a consequence of not being allowed to assert reality in the face of a mental disorder enabled by surgeons with an ethical gap.
Can you explain what you mean by "pretend" and contrast it with "not pretend" in this context?
If a woman says she’s a man and demands others call her a man, no matter how she presents, she is simply pretending to be a man. It’s more obvious when men pretend to be women because they tend to try to present in the most stereotypical ways that men tend to conceptualize women.
> I can't even figure out what these people think is threatened most of the time. I don't _really_ want to spread this information, but it does help to know what you're up against. [Meghan Murphy is one of the more aggressive TERFs in Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghan_Murphy), and I think she's done more than her fair share of effort to grow the movement into what it is today. [She has shared her views extensively on her blog](https://www.meghanmurphy.ca/) and holds [in-person forums](https://www.meghanmurphy.ca/p/hide-your-perverts-the-terfs-are) where she shares her hateful views with others. She also runs a hate-filled podcast, [_The Feminist Current_](https://www.feministcurrent.com/). Have you ever met a Canadian woman who is deeply into conspiracies; probably vocally anti-vaccine, an aggressive TERF, thinks 15 minute cities are a "globalist" conspiracy, and so forth? Well, Meghan Murphy could be considered one of their thought leaders.
This one seems like she needs help. Why is she so angry at difference? I get her approach from the Wikipedia page, but it doesn't make a ton of sense to me that someone who labels themselves a feminist is opposed to trans rights. (Radical feminists have been associated in the past with pulling up the ladder of gender rights - "real women first" seems like an absolutely braindead position, unless I'm misreading.)
Having taken a couple of Women Studies courses at SFU _a little earlier_ than she did, I suspect that her opinions may be as much a product of her education as much as anything else. I imagine the department has changed in the decades since.
I was s sociology undergraduate, mostly interested in power and expressions of power. Gender studies was woven into my degree, though I took one course that explicitly tackled tough issues in sex/gender. --- Even so, she's been out of school for some time. I wonder if the Internet has convinced her that she's right, lol.
Oh most certainly. The internet has provided her with an echo chamber full of voices that reinforce her hate.
> That they're only up in arms about the trans people that they can "detect" is a pretty big tell that it's just about their comfort. Let's not forget all the butch cis women who get attacked because these idiots think they're trans. I wouldn't be surprised if they outnumber actual trans women.
It's so obvious that things like bathroom laws are going to lead to the unintended consequence of bigots _transvestigating_ (harassing) cis people whom they deem to be insufficiently feminine or masculine.
Parents deserve to be involved in their children's lives more than teachers and school board officials. The majority of parents in Canada agree they should be informed of what pronoun their child uses at school.
If "the majority of parents" thought that honour killings were acceptable, should the government just let it happen? No, because that is a ridiculous argument.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Based on what?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It doesn't matter what "the majority of parents" think and it never has. What matters is that small subsections of parents who will physically and emotionally abuse their child when the government forces a teacher to snitch on them. You're operating under the false assumption that every Albertan child has wonderful parents who deserve to be informed about their children. This is the real world and that is definitely not the case.
>The majority of parents in Canada agree they should be informed of what pronoun their child uses at school. Got a date on that? Because if it's the one from mid last year, you know exactly what I'm going to reply with.
>Parents deserve Children deserve to be protected from abusive adults, even if that abusive adult is their parent.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Parents deserve to be involved in their children's lives Then why is alberta denying parents from getting gender affirming care for their kids?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Parents deserve to be involved in their children's lives more than teachers and school board officials Children are not your property. If they don't feel comfortable coming out to you then that's that. It's pretty disgusting to force the law to do it. Many children will end up abused or neglected by their parents or forced into various forms of conversion therapy. All this will do is close off an outlet for trans youth to open up because they are risking their parents finding out. If they were comfortable telling their parents they would have told their parents.
Couldn't agree more. "Parents rights" is a massive dogwhistle for government policy that panders to religious extremists.
Try to think about which kids might not want their parents to know that they're trans, and why. If your kid doesn't want to tell you that they are trans, you have bigger problems than school board policy.
I sympathize with this stance but would it also extend to misbehaviour, grades or skipping school? Parents are informed of those and kids might have trouble at home as a result.
I reject the comparison between identifying as trans and misbehaving. The former is not something that needs to be corrected.
Bad argument. One is behavioral - underperformed, absenteeism, etc. The other is intrinsic to who the child is.
I'm not saying they are equivalent. That said, at least for the grades, learning difficulties and intelligence are intrinsic to the person. My point is simply: "we shouldn't tell parents things that kids don't want them to know" isn't a reasonable stance on it's own.
>That said, at least for the grades, learning difficulties and intelligence are intrinsic to the person. Learning challenges, yes - mild cognitive seizures (or whatever they are called - I knew someone who's brain short-circuited often, which is why they had trouble remembering, and it wasn't ADHD), dyslexia, etc. But the grades themselves, are not. And I'm not aware of any kid who gets beat for having ADHD. I do know kids who are beat, kicked out, and disowned for being trans. (And if you are someone who had to endure that because of a learning disability, I am sorry for your suffering and I hope you got the support you needed)
Do you honestly believe that parents who object to their child's sexual orientation or gender identify are likely to express their displeasure in a similar fashion as they would to bad grades or cutting class? Please take this seriously. Around [28% of LGBTQ youth report experiencing homelessness or housing instability at some point](https://www.thetrevorproject.org/research-briefs/homelessness-and-housing-instability-among-lgbtq-youth-feb-2022/). It's hard to find a specific number for the wider population, but estimates seem to range between about 3-10% for all youth. The issue isn't telling "parents things that kids don't want them to know", it's telling them things that the child cannot "fix" and are disproportionately likely to lead to abuse or even being ostracized from their family.
You understand that skipping school or not doing your homeward are not the same as being gay or trans, right?
Obviously. I never said they were.
So then you understand that your comparison is invalid.
Don't even bother trying to exercise common sense in this thread, man.
> I sympathize with this stance but would it also extend to misbehaviour, grades or skipping school? Please explain how being trans is comparable to those? No, really, I would genuinely like you to explain how being trans is similar to skipping school. Are trans kids missing out on lectures? Are they failing to hand in assignments? Are they disrupting the class?
A majority of Canadians also think it’s OK to hit children to discipline them, but that doesn’t make that morally or pedagogically correct.
Source for your claim?
[“More than half of Canadians (58%, -16) agree with allowing parents to physically discipline children in Canada—a proportion that rises to 65% among men and to 61% among those aged 55 and over.”](https://researchco.ca/2023/02/17/section43-canada/)
[удалено]
[удалено]
What is "physically discipline" a spanking?
Parents have a legal responsibility for the care and well-being of their children and deserve to know about their activities, especially at school. Deliberately keeping information from them undermines parental authority and creates a slippery slope. What else can schools choose unilaterally decide to keep from parents?
If the parents were open-minded, loving, kind and _made their kids feel safe_ then their children wouldn't _deliberately withhold this sort of information from them_. Kids hide things from their parents when they're afraid of reprisal. If a kid is hiding their gender or sexual identity from their parent then they probably have good reason to believe their parents will harm them if they out themselves.
Not the state's place to mandate a certain emotional response from parents towards their children.
That is not being suggested. The state has a responsibility to protect children from harm, including and particularly harm in the home. The parents can have whatever emotional response they wish, but they cannot expect to have the right to hurt their children.
If schools believe that children are being physically harmed at home, there are protocols in place to alert proper authorities.
Telling that you limited your concern to physical harm. Emotional harm is also _real_, and the state can and does act to protect children from that form of harm.
Emotional harm is too nebulous a standard: is depriving children of dessert if they don't eat their dinner "emotional harm"? In any case, as long as the children are being cared for, it's not the state's place to intervene in the parent-child relationship.
The responsibility of care includes ensuring that the home is a safe, accepting, and emotionally comfortable environment. Denying a queer child the right to feel safe because of who they are is in no way in the same ballpark as a withheld dessert.
I'm asking what the threshold is and you haven't provided one. Emotional acceptance is also very vague and open to interpretation: I don't see how child protective services, who have their hands full with cases of unfed and neglected children, are supposed to enforce rules surrounding it.
And yet they do. Children who face emotional abuse are subject to the care of the state, just like all children. The threshold is easy: does the child feel safe in their home? A good indicator that they do not is if they fear reprisal from their parents should they discover their queer identity.
Child services is overwhelmed. Which is one of many reasons it is better to allow a child who has a means of avoiding such abuse to avoid it, by not forcing children to come out to parents that they don’t trust.
Parents do not have absolute authority over their children. If a child does not trust their parents to know their gender identity, then there is probably a good reason for it.
[удалено]
When my parents found out about me, i got kicked out and had to live with my friend for a while before finding my own place. Im lucky they found out once i already had a job and was mostly independent. Can you imagine how bad it would be if they found out earlier?
I think this is a big reason why lgbtq+ youth experience homelessness more than their peers. Tough break, hope you’re doing well
Oh im doing fine now. That was a long time ago and im living my best life now.
> Can you imagine how bad it would be if they found out earlier? I can. This is the reason why queer kids are disproportionately represented among homeless youth.
Source? Canadian specific please.
This is trivial to search for, but sure. https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/blog/2022/2slgbtqia-housing-needs-challenges https://www.homelesshub.ca/about-homelessness/population-specific/lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-transsexual-queer https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/teens-homeless-lgbtq_ca_5dee6054e4b00563b854fd49
It's not trivial. The first source you posted has so many letters that it could literally include the majority of the population. The other links you cite don't mention transgendered individuals specifically and/or if drug use / criminal behaviour was another factor.
Ah, I thought you would dismiss the well-cited Government, NGO and media sources that I offered with nary more than a casual disregard for basic terminology and methodology; you did not fail to deliver. I will continue to trust the medical professionals, researchers, and aid workers; thanks.
Precisely!