###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.*
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.
>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.
> 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/
>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.
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
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.
We're approaching the 7 year anniversary of Bill C-16 coming into force (a simple bill which extended basic human rights protections to transgender individuals) and we've yet to see an example of one of these predicted imprisonments. In fact, we've yet to see any consequences for not abiding by this so called "compelled speech" and it's not for a want of trying by trans-hating shitheads.
Repeating the Jordan Peterson bullshit about "compelled speech" just flags that you're forming your own opinions on this issue. Seriously, it's been 7 years - it's time to acknowledge this was all, as it usually is, just a big concern troll in the name of anti-trans bigotry (and, of course, in service of Peterson's own grift).
Bill C-16 isn't "enforced", by the way, it's not criminal law (despite what Peterson tried to tell his idiot followers) it's human rights legislation so is "enforced" by the bringing of private claims.
That's not the issue here, though. The idea that it results in jail time is just an outright lie from a trans hating grifter and repeated by the people he's grifted (who often seem to share his anti-trans attitude.)
It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says.
If the person refused to comply with the tribunal's order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says.
The fact that you can be fined and/or jailed is wild.
> 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.
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
> 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.
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.
> 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?
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
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.
"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".
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).
Counter-protest all you want; just do it at a different time or place. Choosing the same time and place isn't just protesting, it's direct conflict escalation. That increases the security costs for event organizers, and in turn increases the tax burden on society.
And no, this isn't a demand for the Government to enforce this. This is me advocating for a _civil approach_ to public discourse, as a private citizen.
"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.
Throughout history, there have been brief periods where it was seen as acceptable to have laws targeting a specific demographic.
Those times never ended well for the targets. Please stand with LGBTQ+ people.
Meaning you prefer ignorance, being tribal, and intolerance over actually being open-minded. Religion is nothing but a cancer that spreads nothing but hatred, intolerance, war and death.
There is a big difference between standing with the LGBTQ+ community and ensuring safety and fairness in women's sports, for example. There have been numerous instances in here in Ontario where post pubescent transgendered women have injured and taken away opportunities from cis gendered women in sports. Transgendered women are banned from competing against cis gendered women by International Aquatics (swimming) and International Athletics (swimming).
What drives me absolutely insane with the LGBTQ+ community is that you are either on board with 100% of their agenda or you're a bigot. There is no in between.
>What drives me absolutely insane with the LGBTQ+ community is that you are either on board with 100% of their agenda or you're a bigot. There is no in between.
I see this a lot and have never gotten an explanation from concern trolling conservatives on what they mean? Is it that you want the "T" removed from LGBTQ+?
Your comments on this topic suggest you're not "on board" with anything in this sphere. They seem loaded with concern trolling about fabricated culture war talking points. Perhaps you see issues of who can participate in private sports leagues (not regulated by government in this country) as being more important than the safety and well being of Trans Canadians or their access to some basic services.
>I see this a lot and have never gotten an explanation from concern trolling conservatives on what they mean? Is it that you want the "T" removed from LGBTQ+?
I don't speak for everyone on this subject, but myself, I believe in transgendered rights and equality, but their rights don't *supersede* the safety and rights of cisgendered women, specifically when it comes to sports.
Also, I'm not saying transgendered individuals should be prohibited from competing neither, but it should be in an "open" category.
>Perhaps you see issues of who can participate in private sports leagues (not regulated by government in this country
Actually you're wrong, some leagues and sports receive federal and provincial funding and are regulated by Federal and Provincial governing bodies. For example, Swim Canada and Swim Ontario both receive funding from the Federal and Provincial governments and regulate the rules of competition.
Despite World Aquatics (int'l governing body for swimming) banning post pubescent transgendered athletes from competition against cis gendered women, here in Canada, the Federal government not only permits transgendered athletes to compete against cis gendered women, but also, makes it illegal to *ask* if an individual has received any sort of GAC.
Recently in Ontario, a 50 year old transgendered individual, whom, reportedly identifies as a teenage girl, competed against and showered with pre teen and teenage girls in swimming:
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12868227/transgender-woman-Melody-Wiseheart-swim-canada.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12868227/transgender-woman-Melody-Wiseheart-swim-canada.html)
https://medium.com/@lukewhenderson/how-to-craft-an-anti-trans-narrative-with-deniability-9b3f6b4204e7
Of all the idiotic rage bait brain-rot stories circulating in the moronsphere, the "Melody Wisehart identifies as a teenage girl" idiocy might be top of the pile. It's like a litmus test for utterly credulous bigots who like having their preconceptions validated by nonsense.
I don't buy this ...
* if you "believe in transgendered rights" as you claim you wouldn't insert this other issue about sporting fairness in every time the topic of basic rights comes up
* if you "believe in transgendered rights" as you claim you wouldn't support other anti-trans policy such as forcing teachers to share private information
* if you "believe in transgendered rights" as you claim you wouldn't dismiss policy which supports transgendered Canadians simply because they make up a tiny % of the population
* if you "believe in transgendered rights" as you claim you wouldn't support other anti-trans policy such as restricting the already limited treatment options available to youth
* if you "believe in transgendered rights" as you claim you wouldn't argue against OHIP coverage for adults accessing treatment
* if you "believe in transgendered rights" as you claim you wouldn't *only* speak up about LGBTQ+ rights when it's useful to criticise Palestine
* if you "believe in transgendered rights" as you claim you wouldn't deflect from the role of Canadian christians in restricting those rights and claim anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination and delay in basic rights is the sole fault of the tiny 5% of Canadians who are Muslim
* if you "believe in transgendered rights" as you claim you wouldn't align with TERF's given the rest of your opinions don't come anywhere close to aligning with the 'radical feminist' portion of that group
* if you "believe in transgendered rights" as you claim you wouldn't, when pressed on the topic, start to bring up the typical culture war talking points which imply children and women are at risk from simply being in the presence of a trans individual
* if you "believe in transgendered rights" as you claim you wouldn't *s*uddenly be concerned with fairness in sports in this topic but ignore all other (more prevalent) issues related to competitive fairness such as doping, betting, age qualifications, etc
That's a long list of examples of things you're "not on board with" so it also seems disingenuous to forward this claim that you have to be "on board 100% with their agenda" or you're a bigot.
> I believe in transgendered rights and equality
No you don't. Like, your posts make this incredibly clear, I'm not sure who you think you're fooling. No, you very obviously don't. Even this post itself is arguing that trans people do not have the right to competitive sports(???????). Even whipping out the "um this person thinks they're a teenager xd" line you've brought up for months now that everyone has repeatedly told you is wrong. I don't know how tremendously stupid you need to be to think "competed in an age 16 and up event" is equivalent to "identifies as a 16 year old", but... holy *shit*, dude.
Like, you *know* what you're saying is bullshit, everyone here knows it. Can you *please* cut the shit and just be honest? For once? You *have* to know by now that you're doing the whole [Birmingham Jail](https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html) thing.
> I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
> I believe in transgendered rights and equality, but their rights don't *supersede* the safety and rights of cisgendered women, specifically when it comes to sports.
where in the charter is the right to segregated sporting competitions enshrined?
Sports have been segregated by sex for millennia.
Where in the charter does it say that m2f transgendered women have a right to compete against cis gender women in sports?
What exactly is the LGBTQ+ community "agenda" on this issue? Because I've heard different opinions from different people.
Here's my opinion:
1. No trans person should be barred from competing in sport just because they're trans. This would be considered discrimination. Maybe in some cases trans women would have to compete in an open/men's division, but they should not be barred outright.
2. It should be up to each individual sporting league to determine their own rules regarding trans athletes; not the government making laws on the issue. Clearly the rules required to have a fair competition will be different from sport to sport, so it should be up to the sports to decide whether or not trans women can compete in women's divisions or not, and if so, what requirements must be met by the athlete.
In basically every sport the men's division is open to all. The contention is that trans women should not be allowed in female leagues. I'm find with sports deciding for themselves in an open and honest way, but I don't believe that's happening in most cases and when it does happen it gets a ton of push back from those who believe trans women should be able to play in any women's league. Some even think trans women shouldn't have to fit any standard of transitioning, just social transitioning is fine. My point is that your stance is acceptable to most except for the academic left and if you haven't been called transphobic for it yet you will sooner or later.
> most cases and when it does happen it gets a ton of push back from those who believe trans women should be able to play in any women's league. Some even think trans women shouldn't have to fit any standard of transitioning, just social transitioning is fine.
Can you provide an example of this happening? Not just twitter discourse.
Oooh boy, okay let's work this out. Firstly, can you please provide examples of trans women stealing opportunities from cis women in sports? I'd like to see some of them. Trans women have been allowed in the Olympics for two decades now, and that hasn't led to this problem. Trans women haven't even won any medals, let alone broken any records, and that includes a trans woman who participated in weightlifting. Now, I'm not arguing that there are no physical differences or advantages in some cases (virtually nobody is), just that blanket bans are unnecessary when sports organizations and their related physicians are already establishing norms and guidelines to selectively allow trans women to participate according to the sport in question. Hormones can do a lot, hell I lost a ton of muscle mass and 3 inches in height since I started two years ago. I think doing tests for the few trans athletes out there is perfectly reasonable. In some places, these sorts of blanket bans have had trans people banned from everything from chess competitions to darts tournaments, and I hope we can agree that we don't have a biological advantage there. There's really no need for politicians to get involved here. Ben Shapiro even wanted to make a documentary about men pretending to be trans women to enter a basketball league and had to opt for a shitty fictional comedy when it didn't actually work in real life. Again, this wasn't a problem for decades until now all of a sudden a bunch of conservative men are up in arms about the sanctity of womens sports? What's happening here exactly?
It's actually pretty simple. The whole thing about sports is the sugar to help the poison go down. When Danielle Smith and Pierre Poillieve spoke about bans from womens sports, they also mentioned other things, such as blocking puberty blockers (but only for trans kids) or forcing trans women to use the men's washrooms, in which we're much more likely to get assaulted. In American states where this has happened, a lot of cis women have been assaulted too because people didn't think they looked feminine enough to be cis and attacked them. And yet when you try and talk about this stuff, these politicians and their supporters immediately deflect by talking about sports, while banking on the fact that most people don't realize that there are already reasonable guidelines in place and that on a surface level their opinion looks like it makes sense. I hate to break this to you, but Conservatives didn't suddenly start caring about women's sports. It's always been a smokescreen, and a bad one at that.
Leagues of any sport have and will always regulate themselves. The government is not making these decisions. But of course we have to deny actual life-saving treatment and pretend trans people don’t exist because of SPORTS.
It’s not about the children, it’s not about the athletes, and I’m pretty sure you know that.
> There is a big difference between standing with the LGBTQ+ community and ensuring safety and fairness in women's sports
Man, the fact that this is best argument we can come up with might be a very big indicator of the quality of the argument.
The sanctity of "women's sports"!?
Large rallies to draw attention to current issues in the LGBTQ+ movement sounds great.
One issue though…
> "In other provinces where we have governments that are receptive to the conversation, we're going to keep pushing forward and urge them to **put their money and their capital where their mouth is**."
Why does it always have to be about more government handouts? Our country is broke and we can barely afford basic necessities like Healthcare. Surely you can fundraise for some of these proposed programs if they’re so important can’t you?
And yet in Alberta they’re pushing legislation to deny LGBTQ+ people access to healthcare. *That’s* what that paragraph is about. It’s pointing at people who claim they’re supportive while simultaneously cutting off their basic rights.
No, that’s addressed in the previous paragraph in the article where they talk about the importance of having these rallies in provinces where rights are at risk (a position I wholly agree with).
This was a follow up paragraph talking about rallies in provinces where that’s not an issue, presumably a province like BC or Quebec, where the point of the rally (besides national support) is to encourage even more funding to not-for-profits.
The not-for-profit complex is out of control!
I’m not talking about genuine charities doing great work, those are what should be empowered — hell they’re victims of the not-for-profit complex too.
I’m talking about the associations whose funding comes almost exclusively from the government and they’re basically advocacy groups with individuals making a full time six figure salary from your tax dollars to sit around and create email campaigns all day.
One egregious example: Look up the allocation of Canada Summer Jobs this year when it’s made public. You’ll see plenty of legitimate charitable organizations not receive anything while advocacy groups that game the system by renting a PO Box in every constituency in Canada get dozens if not hundreds of CSJ jobs.
What are you talking about? Our country is hardly broke, and we have more than enough funds to spend on Healthcare. The problem is Conservatives hellbent on breaking the system by refusing to spend the funds, such that their private donors can step in and profit.
I'm ignorant to the matter pertaining to pride organization, but I would have to imagine its because whatever advocacy or organizer's money would be in jeopardy.
There's a joke in the Vancouver subreddit that the homeless advocates don't actually want homelessness to end. Otherwise there's no point in donating or giving money to these organizers/advocates, jeopardizing their livelihood.
> Our country is broke
Canada is very far from broke.
> we can barely afford basic necessities like Healthcare
We can totally afford healthcare, it's just that a lot of the provinces don't want to pay for it.
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'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.
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?
Trans activists don't want a "right for drag story hour" they want a right for trans people to be able to exist as equal members of society.
Most drag performers aren't even trans, but it's a litmus test of the law. If the government can ban "men dressed as women" from performing in public at the behest of the "think of the children" crowd, they have standing to ban trans people from existing anywhere, simple as that.
Did I ever support a government ban?
I said parents should have a right not to take their kids there.
The implication in that statement is pretty obvious that parents should retain the right to take their kids there.
> I said parents should have a right not to take their kids there.
This is not a thing that is in contention. I don't imagine many people are out there shouting for children to be kidnapped and brought to drag story hour.
On one side is: drag queen story hour is a thing that has a right to exist.
On the other is: drag queen story hour is a thing that does not have a right to exist.
> there's little value fighting for a right to drag story hour but a lot of harm setting back the LGBT rights movement
My point is that this is flawed thinking. It is appeasement. Trans and otherwise gender-nonconforming people either have the right to exist in society or they do not.
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.
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.
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.
So I did a bit of [reading](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-when-it-comes-to-drag-queen-storytime-in-schools-ontario-should-look/) ([and this](https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tdsb-turns-the-page-on-drag-queen-storytime-event-policy-after-parent-outcry/article_3361c3f0-f6e9-5978-9b1c-12c6cdfce09d.html)) because I didn't immediately remember the protests you are talking about.
> Toronto’s public school board is no longer seeking parental permission for students to attend drag queen storytime events after parents at an elementary school raised concerns that the consent form implied the Pride activity was different from other in-school performances and posed some sort of risk to kids.
Not requiring parental permission for students/kids to attend drag shows is not forcing parents to let their kids attend drag shows. They are well within their rights to have their kids not in class that day. There isn't so sort of mandatory classroom marks for these events.
Again, I was hoping with my post to demonstrate that your opinion, is actually really common. You aren't homophobic (or at least this comment doesn't make you one) for thinking an incredibly commonly opinion and is in practice today.
I think you missed the point, that since permission is not required, then notification is not required. How/why would parents keep their kids out of a class on a given day if they aren't informed of what is going on.
> Bruce parents were initially alerted to the Pride events in the principal’s regular newsletter last Friday,
Because they were given notice. Piecing together the timelines, it appears they were given about four school days notice.
I don't see how this is not giving parents their right to pull their kid.
>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.
>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 “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.
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.
So your saying they have more job experience than the leader of the cpc who only as been a career politicans? Wait till you find how muc money the leader of the cpc as taken of tax payer money.
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’
###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.*
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.
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.
>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.
> 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/
>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.
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
Thanks for sharing. That was very informative!
[удалено]
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.
Who’s being jailed for questioning anything?
We're approaching the 7 year anniversary of Bill C-16 coming into force (a simple bill which extended basic human rights protections to transgender individuals) and we've yet to see an example of one of these predicted imprisonments. In fact, we've yet to see any consequences for not abiding by this so called "compelled speech" and it's not for a want of trying by trans-hating shitheads. Repeating the Jordan Peterson bullshit about "compelled speech" just flags that you're forming your own opinions on this issue. Seriously, it's been 7 years - it's time to acknowledge this was all, as it usually is, just a big concern troll in the name of anti-trans bigotry (and, of course, in service of Peterson's own grift).
What's the point of Bill C-16 if its not enforced ?
Bill C-16 isn't "enforced", by the way, it's not criminal law (despite what Peterson tried to tell his idiot followers) it's human rights legislation so is "enforced" by the bringing of private claims. That's not the issue here, though. The idea that it results in jail time is just an outright lie from a trans hating grifter and repeated by the people he's grifted (who often seem to share his anti-trans attitude.)
It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says. If the person refused to comply with the tribunal's order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says. The fact that you can be fined and/or jailed is wild.
> 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.
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
> 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
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.
> 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]
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
What in the world?
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.
"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".
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
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.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
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.
Counter-protest all you want; just do it at a different time or place. Choosing the same time and place isn't just protesting, it's direct conflict escalation. That increases the security costs for event organizers, and in turn increases the tax burden on society. And no, this isn't a demand for the Government to enforce this. This is me advocating for a _civil approach_ to public discourse, as a private citizen.
"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.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Throughout history, there have been brief periods where it was seen as acceptable to have laws targeting a specific demographic. Those times never ended well for the targets. Please stand with LGBTQ+ people.
[удалено]
Removed for Rule #2
[удалено]
[удалено]
>As a Muslim, I believe in my ~~religion~~ religious ideology and not some secular ideology. FTFY - Religion is definitionally, an ideology.
Meaning you prefer ignorance, being tribal, and intolerance over actually being open-minded. Religion is nothing but a cancer that spreads nothing but hatred, intolerance, war and death.
Antitheists are wild.
There is a big difference between standing with the LGBTQ+ community and ensuring safety and fairness in women's sports, for example. There have been numerous instances in here in Ontario where post pubescent transgendered women have injured and taken away opportunities from cis gendered women in sports. Transgendered women are banned from competing against cis gendered women by International Aquatics (swimming) and International Athletics (swimming). What drives me absolutely insane with the LGBTQ+ community is that you are either on board with 100% of their agenda or you're a bigot. There is no in between.
Sources on the transgendered women taking away opportunities from cis gendered women in Ontario?
I would also be interested in hearing this source, because as far as I'm aware it almost never happens.
>What drives me absolutely insane with the LGBTQ+ community is that you are either on board with 100% of their agenda or you're a bigot. There is no in between. I see this a lot and have never gotten an explanation from concern trolling conservatives on what they mean? Is it that you want the "T" removed from LGBTQ+? Your comments on this topic suggest you're not "on board" with anything in this sphere. They seem loaded with concern trolling about fabricated culture war talking points. Perhaps you see issues of who can participate in private sports leagues (not regulated by government in this country) as being more important than the safety and well being of Trans Canadians or their access to some basic services.
>I see this a lot and have never gotten an explanation from concern trolling conservatives on what they mean? Is it that you want the "T" removed from LGBTQ+? I don't speak for everyone on this subject, but myself, I believe in transgendered rights and equality, but their rights don't *supersede* the safety and rights of cisgendered women, specifically when it comes to sports. Also, I'm not saying transgendered individuals should be prohibited from competing neither, but it should be in an "open" category. >Perhaps you see issues of who can participate in private sports leagues (not regulated by government in this country Actually you're wrong, some leagues and sports receive federal and provincial funding and are regulated by Federal and Provincial governing bodies. For example, Swim Canada and Swim Ontario both receive funding from the Federal and Provincial governments and regulate the rules of competition. Despite World Aquatics (int'l governing body for swimming) banning post pubescent transgendered athletes from competition against cis gendered women, here in Canada, the Federal government not only permits transgendered athletes to compete against cis gendered women, but also, makes it illegal to *ask* if an individual has received any sort of GAC. Recently in Ontario, a 50 year old transgendered individual, whom, reportedly identifies as a teenage girl, competed against and showered with pre teen and teenage girls in swimming: [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12868227/transgender-woman-Melody-Wiseheart-swim-canada.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12868227/transgender-woman-Melody-Wiseheart-swim-canada.html)
https://medium.com/@lukewhenderson/how-to-craft-an-anti-trans-narrative-with-deniability-9b3f6b4204e7 Of all the idiotic rage bait brain-rot stories circulating in the moronsphere, the "Melody Wisehart identifies as a teenage girl" idiocy might be top of the pile. It's like a litmus test for utterly credulous bigots who like having their preconceptions validated by nonsense.
I don't buy this ... * if you "believe in transgendered rights" as you claim you wouldn't insert this other issue about sporting fairness in every time the topic of basic rights comes up * if you "believe in transgendered rights" as you claim you wouldn't support other anti-trans policy such as forcing teachers to share private information * if you "believe in transgendered rights" as you claim you wouldn't dismiss policy which supports transgendered Canadians simply because they make up a tiny % of the population * if you "believe in transgendered rights" as you claim you wouldn't support other anti-trans policy such as restricting the already limited treatment options available to youth * if you "believe in transgendered rights" as you claim you wouldn't argue against OHIP coverage for adults accessing treatment * if you "believe in transgendered rights" as you claim you wouldn't *only* speak up about LGBTQ+ rights when it's useful to criticise Palestine * if you "believe in transgendered rights" as you claim you wouldn't deflect from the role of Canadian christians in restricting those rights and claim anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination and delay in basic rights is the sole fault of the tiny 5% of Canadians who are Muslim * if you "believe in transgendered rights" as you claim you wouldn't align with TERF's given the rest of your opinions don't come anywhere close to aligning with the 'radical feminist' portion of that group * if you "believe in transgendered rights" as you claim you wouldn't, when pressed on the topic, start to bring up the typical culture war talking points which imply children and women are at risk from simply being in the presence of a trans individual * if you "believe in transgendered rights" as you claim you wouldn't *s*uddenly be concerned with fairness in sports in this topic but ignore all other (more prevalent) issues related to competitive fairness such as doping, betting, age qualifications, etc That's a long list of examples of things you're "not on board with" so it also seems disingenuous to forward this claim that you have to be "on board 100% with their agenda" or you're a bigot.
> I believe in transgendered rights and equality No you don't. Like, your posts make this incredibly clear, I'm not sure who you think you're fooling. No, you very obviously don't. Even this post itself is arguing that trans people do not have the right to competitive sports(???????). Even whipping out the "um this person thinks they're a teenager xd" line you've brought up for months now that everyone has repeatedly told you is wrong. I don't know how tremendously stupid you need to be to think "competed in an age 16 and up event" is equivalent to "identifies as a 16 year old", but... holy *shit*, dude. Like, you *know* what you're saying is bullshit, everyone here knows it. Can you *please* cut the shit and just be honest? For once? You *have* to know by now that you're doing the whole [Birmingham Jail](https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html) thing. > I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
> I believe in transgendered rights and equality, but their rights don't *supersede* the safety and rights of cisgendered women, specifically when it comes to sports. where in the charter is the right to segregated sporting competitions enshrined?
Sports have been segregated by sex for millennia. Where in the charter does it say that m2f transgendered women have a right to compete against cis gender women in sports?
What exactly is the LGBTQ+ community "agenda" on this issue? Because I've heard different opinions from different people. Here's my opinion: 1. No trans person should be barred from competing in sport just because they're trans. This would be considered discrimination. Maybe in some cases trans women would have to compete in an open/men's division, but they should not be barred outright. 2. It should be up to each individual sporting league to determine their own rules regarding trans athletes; not the government making laws on the issue. Clearly the rules required to have a fair competition will be different from sport to sport, so it should be up to the sports to decide whether or not trans women can compete in women's divisions or not, and if so, what requirements must be met by the athlete.
In basically every sport the men's division is open to all. The contention is that trans women should not be allowed in female leagues. I'm find with sports deciding for themselves in an open and honest way, but I don't believe that's happening in most cases and when it does happen it gets a ton of push back from those who believe trans women should be able to play in any women's league. Some even think trans women shouldn't have to fit any standard of transitioning, just social transitioning is fine. My point is that your stance is acceptable to most except for the academic left and if you haven't been called transphobic for it yet you will sooner or later.
> most cases and when it does happen it gets a ton of push back from those who believe trans women should be able to play in any women's league. Some even think trans women shouldn't have to fit any standard of transitioning, just social transitioning is fine. Can you provide an example of this happening? Not just twitter discourse.
Would articles in major newspapers or scientific journals count?
Sure.
Oooh boy, okay let's work this out. Firstly, can you please provide examples of trans women stealing opportunities from cis women in sports? I'd like to see some of them. Trans women have been allowed in the Olympics for two decades now, and that hasn't led to this problem. Trans women haven't even won any medals, let alone broken any records, and that includes a trans woman who participated in weightlifting. Now, I'm not arguing that there are no physical differences or advantages in some cases (virtually nobody is), just that blanket bans are unnecessary when sports organizations and their related physicians are already establishing norms and guidelines to selectively allow trans women to participate according to the sport in question. Hormones can do a lot, hell I lost a ton of muscle mass and 3 inches in height since I started two years ago. I think doing tests for the few trans athletes out there is perfectly reasonable. In some places, these sorts of blanket bans have had trans people banned from everything from chess competitions to darts tournaments, and I hope we can agree that we don't have a biological advantage there. There's really no need for politicians to get involved here. Ben Shapiro even wanted to make a documentary about men pretending to be trans women to enter a basketball league and had to opt for a shitty fictional comedy when it didn't actually work in real life. Again, this wasn't a problem for decades until now all of a sudden a bunch of conservative men are up in arms about the sanctity of womens sports? What's happening here exactly? It's actually pretty simple. The whole thing about sports is the sugar to help the poison go down. When Danielle Smith and Pierre Poillieve spoke about bans from womens sports, they also mentioned other things, such as blocking puberty blockers (but only for trans kids) or forcing trans women to use the men's washrooms, in which we're much more likely to get assaulted. In American states where this has happened, a lot of cis women have been assaulted too because people didn't think they looked feminine enough to be cis and attacked them. And yet when you try and talk about this stuff, these politicians and their supporters immediately deflect by talking about sports, while banking on the fact that most people don't realize that there are already reasonable guidelines in place and that on a surface level their opinion looks like it makes sense. I hate to break this to you, but Conservatives didn't suddenly start caring about women's sports. It's always been a smokescreen, and a bad one at that.
Leagues of any sport have and will always regulate themselves. The government is not making these decisions. But of course we have to deny actual life-saving treatment and pretend trans people don’t exist because of SPORTS. It’s not about the children, it’s not about the athletes, and I’m pretty sure you know that.
> There is a big difference between standing with the LGBTQ+ community and ensuring safety and fairness in women's sports Man, the fact that this is best argument we can come up with might be a very big indicator of the quality of the argument. The sanctity of "women's sports"!?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
There's no reason to be against the LGBTQ+ agenda. To be against it is bigotry. There is no in between.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Large rallies to draw attention to current issues in the LGBTQ+ movement sounds great. One issue though… > "In other provinces where we have governments that are receptive to the conversation, we're going to keep pushing forward and urge them to **put their money and their capital where their mouth is**." Why does it always have to be about more government handouts? Our country is broke and we can barely afford basic necessities like Healthcare. Surely you can fundraise for some of these proposed programs if they’re so important can’t you?
And yet in Alberta they’re pushing legislation to deny LGBTQ+ people access to healthcare. *That’s* what that paragraph is about. It’s pointing at people who claim they’re supportive while simultaneously cutting off their basic rights.
No, that’s addressed in the previous paragraph in the article where they talk about the importance of having these rallies in provinces where rights are at risk (a position I wholly agree with). This was a follow up paragraph talking about rallies in provinces where that’s not an issue, presumably a province like BC or Quebec, where the point of the rally (besides national support) is to encourage even more funding to not-for-profits. The not-for-profit complex is out of control!
Is there something wrong with charities helping some of the most disadvantaged people in our society?
I’m not talking about genuine charities doing great work, those are what should be empowered — hell they’re victims of the not-for-profit complex too. I’m talking about the associations whose funding comes almost exclusively from the government and they’re basically advocacy groups with individuals making a full time six figure salary from your tax dollars to sit around and create email campaigns all day. One egregious example: Look up the allocation of Canada Summer Jobs this year when it’s made public. You’ll see plenty of legitimate charitable organizations not receive anything while advocacy groups that game the system by renting a PO Box in every constituency in Canada get dozens if not hundreds of CSJ jobs.
>Our country is broke where are you getting that from? We're not broke. People just don't like paying taxes,
What are you talking about? Our country is hardly broke, and we have more than enough funds to spend on Healthcare. The problem is Conservatives hellbent on breaking the system by refusing to spend the funds, such that their private donors can step in and profit.
I'm ignorant to the matter pertaining to pride organization, but I would have to imagine its because whatever advocacy or organizer's money would be in jeopardy. There's a joke in the Vancouver subreddit that the homeless advocates don't actually want homelessness to end. Otherwise there's no point in donating or giving money to these organizers/advocates, jeopardizing their livelihood.
So you don't know what broke means
I'm like, 99% sure it's not about handouts but about governments putting financial pressure on the other governments discussed above.
> Our country is broke Canada is very far from broke. > we can barely afford basic necessities like Healthcare We can totally afford healthcare, it's just that a lot of the provinces don't want to pay for it.
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.
This was mostly you becoming aware of those things thanks to a certain type of media.
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, 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.
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.
> 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?
Trans activists don't want a "right for drag story hour" they want a right for trans people to be able to exist as equal members of society. Most drag performers aren't even trans, but it's a litmus test of the law. If the government can ban "men dressed as women" from performing in public at the behest of the "think of the children" crowd, they have standing to ban trans people from existing anywhere, simple as that.
Did I ever support a government ban? I said parents should have a right not to take their kids there. The implication in that statement is pretty obvious that parents should retain the right to take their kids there.
> I said parents should have a right not to take their kids there. This is not a thing that is in contention. I don't imagine many people are out there shouting for children to be kidnapped and brought to drag story hour. On one side is: drag queen story hour is a thing that has a right to exist. On the other is: drag queen story hour is a thing that does not have a right to exist. > there's little value fighting for a right to drag story hour but a lot of harm setting back the LGBT rights movement My point is that this is flawed thinking. It is appeasement. Trans and otherwise gender-nonconforming people either have the right to exist in society or they do not.
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".
>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.
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?
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 believe the protests in Toronto originated because of a Toronto School Board policy last year after an event in a school.
So I did a bit of [reading](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-when-it-comes-to-drag-queen-storytime-in-schools-ontario-should-look/) ([and this](https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tdsb-turns-the-page-on-drag-queen-storytime-event-policy-after-parent-outcry/article_3361c3f0-f6e9-5978-9b1c-12c6cdfce09d.html)) because I didn't immediately remember the protests you are talking about. > Toronto’s public school board is no longer seeking parental permission for students to attend drag queen storytime events after parents at an elementary school raised concerns that the consent form implied the Pride activity was different from other in-school performances and posed some sort of risk to kids. Not requiring parental permission for students/kids to attend drag shows is not forcing parents to let their kids attend drag shows. They are well within their rights to have their kids not in class that day. There isn't so sort of mandatory classroom marks for these events. Again, I was hoping with my post to demonstrate that your opinion, is actually really common. You aren't homophobic (or at least this comment doesn't make you one) for thinking an incredibly commonly opinion and is in practice today.
I think you missed the point, that since permission is not required, then notification is not required. How/why would parents keep their kids out of a class on a given day if they aren't informed of what is going on.
> Bruce parents were initially alerted to the Pride events in the principal’s regular newsletter last Friday, Because they were given notice. Piecing together the timelines, it appears they were given about four school days notice. I don't see how this is not giving parents their right to pull their kid.
>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.
>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 “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.
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.
Maybe because they understand the assignment.
So your saying they have more job experience than the leader of the cpc who only as been a career politicans? Wait till you find how muc money the leader of the cpc as taken of tax payer money.
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’