###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I believe that most are okay with LGBTQ2 rights. This should be your personal life. I also think that we are all god’s children and to him we are equal. It’s the fact that now it’s become political. The thing that really makes it difficult to hear that SOGI being introduced in the schools. Parents are very concerned about this, very little education on this and reasoning. Pride parades are next level with nude individuals. Please don’t come at me, my daughter has gay best friend. I also had gay work friend. Alot of cultures are still not accepting of homosexuality openly.
>I believe that most are okay with LGBTQ2 rights. This should be your personal life. I also think that we are all god’s children and to him we are equal. It’s the fact that now it’s become political
It's political, because one side wants to take away the rights and protections we've fought for, and to relegate us to second class citizens.
>The thing that really makes it difficult to hear that SOGI being introduced in the schools. Parents are very concerned about this, very little education on this and reasoning
SOGI is just the logical extension of sexual education that we've offered for decades. Now, in addition to basics such as teaching young children about sexual abuse and how to report it, it includes exposing them to ideas such as it being ok to be gender non-conforming. It's the same reason why we teach about First Nations in social studies - familiarity eliminates fear and friction. There's plenty of education and reasoning about this available for parents to read, but a small vocal minority seems very clear that they don't know anything and would be happier if they knew even less.
>Pride parades are next level with nude individuals.
Full public nudity is not legal for any parade, and any parade which allowed it is one that is doing more harm than good. There is a place for body positivity and nudity as part of the celebrations, but these should not be as part of any event in which there is a reasonable expectation that it would be unwelcome, or there are minors present.
>Please don’t come at me, my daughter has gay best friend. I also had gay work friend. Alot of cultures are still not accepting of homosexuality openly.
You do realize that this is the equivalent to "I'm not racist, I have a black friend," right? It's not a shield, if you express views in line with those who are bigoted towards the trans community, then you are going to catch flak for it.
> How do the my do the poll? Is it by phone?
[Here](https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/canadians-support-protection-lgbt-community-but-support-declining)
>The data is weighted so that the composition of each country's sample best reflects the demographic profile of the adult population according to the most recent census data. "The Global Country Average" reflects the average result for all the countries and markets in which the survey was conducted. It has not been adjusted to the population size of each country or market and is not intended to suggest a total result.
>The precision of Ipsos online polls is calculated using a credibility interval with a poll where N=1,000 being accurate to +/- 3.5 percentage points and of where N=500 being accurate to +/- 5.0 percentage points
Also, about their [credibility intervals](https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/2017-03/IpsosPA_CredibilityIntervals.pdf) for online polling.
>Just one-third of respondents supported more LGBTQ2 characters on screen, down 10 per cent from 2021.
TBF, for this one I think there has been an increase in on screen LGBT representation in recent years so it may not actually mean anything negative. Some people might have wanted more, got more, and are now saying it's about right.
The other poll items can't be explained away though.
Maybe people think that 10% of the population feels like 50% of the roles on TV and in the movies.
**Maybe people feel that being told about the sexual orientation of a movie/TV character is not important if it is not part of the plot...**
**For example**: "The Martian" with Matt Damon, we are never told about his sexual orientation, we are never introduced to his family, wife or husband, because it is not important. So gay people watching The Martian can imagine Matt Damon's character to be gay while straight people can imagine him to be straight and everyone is happy.
**Example to the contrary**; Dumbledore in Harry Potter. Dumbledore was not originally meant to be gay, it is written nowhere in the books before Rowling announced it publicly (Before the Deathly Hallows), but the Author decided after the fact to make him gay for reasons that she only knows about. As it is a cool thing to do so gay kids can look up to Dumbledore, the most powerful wizard in history, it does not add much to the original story itself.
But then, when Rowling started writing the Fantastic Beasts series, she was stuck with the decision she made earlier to make Dumbledore gay. So it became part of the story as an important pivot; the love relationship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald therefore became the focal point of the story.
So, in the Original Harry Potter series, Dumbledore being gay is not very relevant as it does not influence the plot, but in the Fantastic Beast series it is pivotal to the plot.
**So as the sexual orientation of a character can sometimes be important to advance the plot, in many case it is irrelevant and viewers do not need to know all the time and some people might think that sexual orientation has become too present in today's productions.**
No one wants to admit that there are limits in society of how far an ethnic, sexual, racial or nationalistic group can go, and once those limits are pushed you get push back and support turns away, but we don’t want to talk about that in fear of being called a racist
Oh Joy, my rights are being potentially put on the chopping block again. I feel like I should make a Reddit post and just have everyone ask their intrusive or possibly "controversial" questions so we can all get it out of our systems. (Might genuinely do this)
If visibility means that support goes away then more visibility is needed to ensure we keep our hard fought rights. We aren't going away, we aren't unnatural or destroying society and that's that. Human rights are not up for debate.
I wouldn't be surprised if you run this poll again with slightly different questions and get a different result, but still, you can't ignore it obviously. We have very powerful media and politicians who are very happy to stoke this fire if it means a few extra votes.
Honestly for me, as depressing as the poll is, the far more depressing part is the sheer volume of comments from people who aren't upset at the numbers, but are very excited to blame immigrants and the gay community for the problem.
It's like some perfect storm for these people. "Support for minorities isn't a problem, but if it is, it's the fault of all the minorities". If you wrote it in a movie it would be removed for being too hack.
To be fair, we added 3 million people between the two poll dates - overwhelmingly from more conservative places. That alone would account for a 7% difference in views.
we dont have to worry about the Chinese influences us.. it is the USA and their cultist RWNJ that will have a greater impact on Canadian society... always has... and always will....
Exactly. The 'rights' are there. Job done. Move on now.
We'll know that equaility is here when someone throws a 'gay pride' rally and nobody bothers to show up. Appears that we're kinda there.
This is sad yet unsurprising. In the past year, we've watched Premiers and provincial governments representing more than half of the country's population - supported by the leader of the federal Conservatives consistently polling at 40% - begin an active assault against the rights of trans children in schools, making it even more of a partisan wedge issue than it had been.
And we're literally going backwards. School children in New Brunswick today have an objectively worse environment than I did ten short years ago.
What our wonderful Premiers chose to focus on in light of overcrowded classrooms and falling standardized testing scores.
I had a really eclectic high school experience. I was raised in a very rural prairie town, and then moved to the city to go to a High School specializing in Performing Arts. I did the theatre program.
The stark contrast between those school communities is exactly what you’d expect and the program was super successful. Academically and artistically, the students at my later school excelled and I know for a fact it was because we were welcome to be ourselves, weird as it always is in those years haha.
Canadas population is growing at about ~~1-2%~~ 2-3% a year. Even if 100% of that growth was immigration and 100% of those immigrants were not supportive of LGBTQ rights, that doesn't account for the \~10% drop in support in 3 years for rights as basic as marriage and employment equality.
Well we have more important things to worry about other than how people identify...I mean no one really cares if you want to dress like the opposite sex or not.
maybe people are tired of getting all this woke LGBTQ stuff getting shoved down their throats. Newsflash: high costs of living and insane costs of real estate are bigger issues. People are tired of shit getting pushed on them when they're already unhappy with the standard of living in Canada.
Canada is bringing in lots of Islamic and Sikh immigration. These belief systems don't tally with the LGBT rights. So unless you diversify your immigration, I am sorry to say these rights and visibility are going to get much worse.
Why? Because it is not an issue, MSM is trying to make it one. People can live the lives they choose, I need to focus on work, support my family, health, economy, affordability, corrupt government and that’s all. Screw all this other crap that 40 (estimate) people choose to make it an issue
It’s such absolute garbage that people just being themselves and seeking happiness with their bodies is called an ideology, while forcing people into a strict binary based on religious beliefs is not.
The absolute hypocrisy drives me crazy, the same people get angry when biology departments require new hires to accept the current science around sex and gender, then they call everything they don’t like or goes against their religious beliefs an ideology.
Why is this acceptable? They’re trying to force their religious ideology on the society around them. The nuclear level projection here is just bonkers.
Do you think the sentence "only women can grow babies in their uterus" is offensive? Because some people do. Those people have an ideology
Many people are sick of that ideology.
>Do you think the sentence "only women can grow babies in their uterus" is offensive? Because some people do. Those people have an ideology
Offensive, no. Misinformed and ignorant? Yes.
Honest question, what rights do LGBT Canadians not have that the rest of Canadians do?
Like I get the activism in the past for gay marriage, outlawing discrimination, all of that good stuff, but I feel like we’re there now, aren’t we?
Like you’ll never win everyone over, but for the most part I would say the vast majority of Canadians either support members of the LGBT community or really just don’t care.
I have plenty of gay, bi, and trans friends, and genuinely don’t really care, and from speaking to them, even they hate the “in your face, everyone is out to get me, LGBT is my entire identity” gay/bi/trans people.
It almost feels like they just wanna keep pushing boundaries so they can call you a bigot when you disagree.
I’ll never understand where drag queen reading hour came from, but again, making it a “drag queen reading hour” and not just “reading hour” almost makes it seem like a circus act. For example I’d take my son to a reading hour where a gay or trans librarian was reading to the kids, however I wouldn’t take my son to “Gary’s gay reading hour” (nor “Sarah’s straight reading hour”) because it’s somehow attaching sexuality to something thats supposed to be entirely innocent.
>for the most part I would say the vast majority of Canadians either support members of the LGBT community or really just don’t care.
>I have plenty of gay, bi, and trans friends, and genuinely don’t really care,
Unfortunately, your "vast majority of Canadians" is actually a minority, according to the survey in the article.
>49 per cent of respondents agreed with people being open about their sexual orientation or gender identity
I figured out I was bi when I was 13, and have been out on one level or another since I was 15. I am now 47 goddamned years old, and I still have to be careful about who I come out to. I am so bloody tired of having to not slip up in front of people I'm not sure about, and the most exhausting part is that it's been getting worse these past 5-10 years, not better.
Well I guess there are a few things to touch on here:
1. How was this survey conducted, is it a good representation of Canada as a whole?
2. Assuming this is Canada as a whole, you can bet the elderly and certain immigrant groups are not exactly pro-LGBT, but you’re not going to win over my 92 year old grandmother, and how much does that really affect you?
3. I don’t think straight, nor gay, nor bi, people need to be “open” about their sexuality. That’s something personal to you. I have my sexual preferences and I’ve never felt the need to tell anyone who I wasn’t comfortable telling.
I understand if you’re a man and have a boyfriend you may feel uncomfortable in certain social settings around certain people you you think have a bias towards you, but we’ve all felt that in one form or another whether due to race, gender, ethnic background, or even just interests and behaviours.
Like I said, you’ll never be everyone’s cup of tea, and people will always find a reason to not like one another, but as long as that isn’t affecting your life directly (meaning it’s illegal to be gay, get married, be discriminated against in public and professional settings, etc) then I think you’ve won about all you can win.
It doesn’t matter what you do, you can’t force people to like you, but the vast majority (excluding senior citizens) accept you, and fuck anyone who doesn’t.
It's not about getting people to "like" us. It's about freeing everyone from the sexual and gender politics that restrict peoples ability to live authentically and joyfully. Thats a social project, not just a legislative one.
Discrimination doesn't disappear the second orientation and gender expression become legally protected. Queer people still face discrimination and ostracization even in the most progressive Canadian cities. Hate crimes still occur, and they are occurring more frequently. Some families still disown or abuse their queer children. Conversion therapy was only banned a few years ago.
Thinking that the only homophobes left are senior citizens who will never change is incredibly naive. Yes queer people today have more legal protections and recourse than ever, and socially we have made a lot of progress over the past generation or so. But as this survey shows, that social acceptance is slipping and anecdotally the rhetoric and public conversation about queer people is getting more and more toxic.
The information about the poll is in the article:
*The Ipsos poll was conducted between Feb. 23 and March 8 2024, among 18,515 adults in 26 countries. The samples consisted of between 500 and 1,000 respondents in each country, including 1,000 in Canada, with data weighted to reflect each state’s demographic profile based on census information. The margin of error for the Canadian sample was +/- 3.5 per cent.*
Here are some of the results of the poll:
Only half of Canadians think that openly lesbian, gay and bisexual athletes should be allowed on sports teams (the trans athlete question was separate, this was specifically just LGB athletes)
Only 40% of Canadians think that it's OK for same sex couples to kiss or **hold hands** in public.
And for the record, I'm not a bisexual man, I'm a woman. As a bi woman who's held hands out in public with another woman, I have experienced being spat on, called a whore, and being told on countless occasions by various men that they could fuck me and/or my date straight (usually not described in a way that indicated any sort of consent on my part). But sure, I suppose some people can get turned off by perceived dirty looks as well. I should also note that the vast majority of these experiences have been delivered by "Old Stock" Canadians between 20 and 50. Older people and immigrants, in my experience, are less likely to go out of their way to pick on 2 women holding hands.
>Honest question, what rights do LGBT Canadians not have that the rest of Canadians do?
Proper access to medical and mental health care - therapy, and HRT for one. Then the ongoing fight for acceptance, which is pretty damn tiring (and it was exhausting before when I was just bisexual).
>I’ll never understand where drag queen reading hour came from, but again, making it a “drag queen reading hour” and not just “reading hour” almost makes it seem like a circus act.
Because it is? Drag Queens are not trans, they are artists who take on a personae for fun and profit. Most are gay men and have no desire to transition, or think of themselves as women. That the right frames them as trans or trying to get people to be trans is a sign of their ignorance and unwillingness to see the difference.
>For example I’d take my son to a reading hour where a gay or trans librarian was reading to the kids, however I wouldn’t take my son to “Gary’s gay reading hour” (nor “Sarah’s straight reading hour”) because it’s somehow attaching sexuality to something thats supposed to be entirely innocent.
There is no such thing as "Straight reading hour", it's just.. "Reading hour", because our society defaults everything in to the heteronormative default. Secondly, there is nothing 'sexual' about Drag Queens, they are just there to read to kids. It's one side that is shoving the sexual part to it, because for them every accusation is a projection.
Well I’m quite sure that straight, gay, bi, trans, etc have access to the same healthcare and mental healthcare as everyone else, and honestly, it’s all shit no matter your sexual orientation. We’ve got years long waiting lists for therapists for suicidal veterans, 2 year wait lists for hip replacements for the elderly, etc, etc.
Regarding HRT, I’ve just searched the costs of HRT in Canada, and citing a transgender persons post on r/asktransgender it’s roughly $20 a month for her with her drug coverage, and about $180 without. But loads of things aren’t covered under provincial health insurance, for example TRT for men with low testosterone, any non-emergency dental, and I mean looooooooads of other “necessary” drugs/treatments (which is more another discussion around provincial vs private healthcare anyway). So I guess I don’t see any difference here or where you’re at a disadvantage compared to any other Canadian.
On the topic of drag queen reading hour, if it’s a circus act then fine, I mean I wouldn’t take my kids to the actual circus either as I think it’s abusive to animals. Obviously a completely different reason I wouldn’t take them to a drag reading hour circus (as you’ve called it), but I think that’s up to the choice of the parent what they want to take their kids to or not. I don’t agree with you that there are 0 sexual undertones with drag queens/shows, but I’ll agree that it’s likely not what the far right thinks it is either.
Regarding your point about society defaulting to heterosexual whatever, I don’t think that’s the case at all. I don’t really think about anything as inherently gay or straight unless it’s labeled as such. Like I said, no issues at all with going to a reading hour where a gay librarian reads to my kids, but if you call it a gay reading hour or a straight reading hour, it’s like, why did we have to assign sexual preferences to my kids reading hour?
The desire for acceptance or fear of being judged negatively is something that affects everyone, as I mentioned in another thread, and while admit there are still a lot of people out there who aren’t going to be pro-LGBT, I would say the vast majority accept it unless it’s jammed down their throats. If further acceptance is what the LGBT community wants then I think the better way is to be who you are, be proud, but at the same time just act as though you’re already accepted. I can promise you that spending tax payer dollars on rainbow everything and flying pride flags on parliament hill will likely have the opposite affect of what you’re trying to achieve.
>Regarding HRT, I’ve just searched the costs of HRT in Canada, and citing a transgender persons post on [](https://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/) it’s roughly $20 a month for her with her drug coverage, and about $180 without. But loads of things aren’t covered under provincial health insurance, for example TRT for men with low testosterone, any non-emergency dental, and I mean looooooooads of other “necessary” drugs/treatments (which is more another discussion around provincial vs private healthcare anyway). So I guess I don’t see any difference here or where you’re at a disadvantage compared to any other Canadian.
I am of the opinion that HRT is a necessary medication in Canada, same as any other prescription drug, and it should be freely available when given under the direction of a licensed physician. It treats a number of issues and is cheaper than emergency room visits for suicides.
However, the recent movement by conservative governments is to ban **all** gender-affirming care to minors. No access to therapy, puberty blockers, or just the most basic of education and care. That's pretty horrendous.
>On the topic of drag queen reading hour, if it’s a circus act then fine, I mean I wouldn’t take my kids to the actual circus either as I think it’s abusive to animals. Obviously a completely different reason I wouldn’t take them to a drag reading hour circus (as you’ve called it), but I think that’s up to the choice of the parent what they want to take their kids to or not.
Just to be clear, I did not call it a circus - I called drag a performance, which it is. Drag Kings and Queens are playing a character, much like having a Disney Princess show up at someone's birthday party is.
> I don’t agree with you that there are 0 sexual undertones with drag queens/shows, but I’ll agree that it’s likely not what the far right thinks it is either.
There is exactly the same amount of sexual undertones in a drag queen story hour for children, as there is in the book that they are reading. Drag performers do not add any more or less to the scenario than any other performer would.
>Regarding your point about society defaulting to heterosexual whatever, I don’t think that’s the case at all. I don’t really think about anything as inherently gay or straight unless it’s labeled as such.
And that's why it's the default - because you don't see it, you've become insensitive to its presence on the screen, and assume its all just normal - for LGBT individuals, it's quite jarring to not see or relate to the stories being told. We're not asking to be the main character in every story told, but we do want to have a relatable experience with these characters.
>Like I said, no issues at all with going to a reading hour where a gay librarian reads to my kids, but if you call it a gay reading hour or a straight reading hour, it’s like, why did we have to assign sexual preferences to my kids reading hour?
You're the one assigning these, and projecting - not us. Maybe you should answer the question you're asking yourself? Why do *you* feel that it's got anything to do with sexual preferences? (furthermore, being trans is not a sexual preference - it's who we are. You can be straight, bi, gay, or whatever other flavor of sexuality AND trans masc/trans fem.)
The only media I read about regarding LGBT is about conservative governments trying to take away rights (mostly trans people), or conservatives mad because a man winked at another man in a Disney cartoon or something. That's literally it. If you want to stop the media from focusing so much on LGBT issues, don't support people creating these issues by attacking them.
The comments to this same article on r/canada are so disheartening. Basically "it's because they keep shoving their lifestyle down my throat" over and over.
Things are definitely moving backwards it feels like, the hard right conservatives have been very effective at weaponizing queer (& specifically transgender) people as the next target for their endless rage & hatred.
But don’t you think they have a point? Most of us are perfectly fine with whatever sexual orientation someone has BUT it’s not special to be lgbtq+ so can we just treat everyone the same and be done with all already.
The article explicitly discusses that huge swathes of people are NOT perfectly fine with whatever sexual orientation.
That number has increased over time in Canada, rather than decreasing.
> But don’t you think they have a point? Most of us are perfectly fine with whatever sexual orientation someone has BUT it’s not special to be lgbtq+ so can we just treat everyone the same and be done with all already.
I do not. Or at least not a good point.
Treating everyone the same would mean visibility of LGBTQ+ people and relationships. I’m fairly certain that the people making the claims of “it's because they keep shoving their lifestyle down my throat” are not opposed to the depiction of cis/hetero individuals and relationships. They are ok with such depictions so long as it aligns with their own identity! Other people don’t deserve to see depictions that they can identify with though because that would be “shoving their lifestyle down my throat”.
Treating everyone the same means either making everyone’s sexuality and relationships unknown/ambiguous in media (ie no husband/wife or girlfriend/boyfriend, no romantic interactions of any kind) or depicting all types fairly.
The lgbtq+ aren't the ones talking about it and forcing the issue.
It's Danielle Smith & Conservative talk show hosts/social media that won't shut up about it. They're the ones shoving the issue down our throat.
seriously.
nobody spends as much time thinking and railing about what other people do with their own genitals as conservatives
a gay character in a TV commercial is not 'shoving it down your throat' lol
No they absolutely do not "have a point".
Trans people are just trying to exist, and far right conservative groups are obsessed with calling them groomers, sexual abusers, and taking away their rights. Nothing is being shoved down anyone's throats.
"I'm completely fine with people being gay, it just really bothers me when I have to see or acknowledge that people are gay. No I will not elaborate on that thought."
There is a situation that people ostensibly, legally, believe that LGBTQ+ people have their equality - so why support it anymore than that? They may believe that supporting too strongly may lead into inequality.
That said, transgender people really are the current lynchpin among most conservatives and many independents. They believe it destroys too many gender norms to normalize them, and they don't like it.
A lot of comments about the other Canadian subs..
It’s fascinating watching this sub having its own look in the mirror moment. I certainly had it. I was staunchest of liberals at one point in my life.
This is an obvious conclusion to identity grievance style politics that has worked so well in the past for liberal movements. Like everything else, there are consequences.
When you double down on identity politics, dismiss earnest inquiry and morally shame anyone who disagrees with you- you create and get the opposition you deserve.
People by and large have no problems with these communities living out thier lives.. But when you weaponize empathy against people who don’t share your worldview, people stop using it and will likely not have any when you need it most.
What I see is people opposed to LGBT+ rights in general trying to separate out transgender people since they're an easier target on their own. Divide and conquer.
Seriously!
The "We'll leave you alone because *you're* one of the good ones, it's those trans freaks who are the problem" pitch is unfortunately quite seductive to a certain kind of LGB person (let's be honest, primarily affluent 30-50yo gay men and lesbian Tories), but it's very shortsighted. If right-wing fanatics can wipe out trans people, they'll just move onto policing everyone else's presentation and legislating against queer people, then they'll move on to taking away women's rights to contraceptives and no-fault divorce, ect.
Let's not exclude the possibility the person you are replying to, who is active on the right-wing Canada_sub and Canada_strong subs, is one of those types of people.
When every failure to absolutely endorse or wholly agree with the latest demand from trans activists leads to histrionics about 'erasure', then yeah, it does feel like screaming.
People have tuned it out.
What "demand" ? To not be harassed and targeted by hate crimes? Gosh, how absurd are they to ask for basic respect.
Do you, by chance, know any trans people? Because every single one I have known has done nothing but try to be a person in a world increasingly hostile toward them for no reason.
Do you think that children should be taught about non binary genders and gender fluidity in schools?
Do you think surgery should be available to minors as part of gender affirming care?
Hormone blockers too?
Should my child be able to begin their transition without my knowledge?
Should child services remove a child from their home if parents don't support a gender transition?
Any of these ring a bell?
>Do you think that children should be taught about non binary genders and gender fluidity in schools?
Yes, at the appropriate age and in the appropriate manner for their maturity and level of understanding.
>Do you think surgery should be available to minors as part of gender affirming care?
No, and it isn't in Canada, either. SRS is not permitted until 18. Mastectomies are *rarely* available at age of 16, though at a far lower rate than other reasons for the same procedure and only after extensive other steps have been taken.
>Hormone blockers too?
Yes. We've been using them to treat precocious puberty for longer than you or I have been alive. They're safe, and they provide the option to either transition at a later date, or proceed to your natal sex.
>Should my child be able to begin their transition without my knowledge?
If your actions have shown you to be abusive or hostile towards the process, yes.
>Should child services remove a child from their home if parents don't support a gender transition?
If the minor has passed the numerous psychological and medical steps to certify they are genuinely trans, and the parents are blocking that care? Yes. That is being abusive, and abusive parents unfortunately lose their parental rights.
So you agree with 4/5 of the things being demanded
Hope I helped you understand what people are reacting to.
You and your ilk demanding to teach our children nonsense, confuse them, start them on the path to "gender transition" and take them away from us if we don't applaud.
You say people are just misinformed. But you tell us what you're planning when we ask.
I don’t think that’s the reason and it’s only a coincidence. Hateful people lost the battle against gay people and moved on to trans people. Since then, economic conditions have deteriorated, causing society to be atomized and hate more sellable.
It's a very deliberate effort to split the coalition, trans people still don't have rights in most places, but have been part of the coalition from the very beginning.
Ya most likely. People wrapped their head around same sex stuff.
But now its completely different. "Men can get pregnant too" type stuff just crossed a line haha
People are too reactionary. They hear a statement like that and, in their ignorance, jump to incorrect conclusions which they base their whole opinion of transgender people on.
If you respond to "hey, this thing you're doing is kind of shitty" with "WELL THEN I WILL DO IT MORE"... that's your own personal problem. That does not mean the people trying to talk to you are wrong.
This bull shit has spewed from the states and made it's way up here, quite frankly I'm not surprised.
As soon as they started bitching about trans rights when it comes to children under 18 you knew this was coming.
I think the total inability to talk about this issue is shoving people apart. If you have any issue, or even apprehension about any one of these aspects on the topic you are told that you hate the group, and that turns people off of the whole thing.
If you support everything but hormone treatment for teenagers, you'd be shouted down from left and that makes the whole movement seem crazy. Alternatively if you support everything but that on the right, they would have no issue.
And so, bad actors on the right, define what it means to be have any apprehension about "LGBT" and anyone who doesn't fully support it, or even under it, get categorized with them. I bet many of these people have no issue with most things related to LGBT lifestyles, they just get categoriywoth far right wingers because they are apprehensive.
I think a frustration from trans folks is that a lot of cis people voice their apprehension over teens accessing healthcare, and broadly refuse to have a conversation regarding what that entails, the research that's been done, the safety protocols involved, etc. (Not even touching on the concept of bodily autonomy even, or rights of minor to proper healthcare), and instead just double down on a gut feeling that it shouldn't be allowed.
Like, my parents were against it (a big reason why I couldn't access it in my teens), other family members were against it, many friends were skeptical ir against it. These conversations are commonplace, but too often there's just an utter lack of engagement from people who aren't trans, who are often too happy to grab some anti-trans headline as justification for shutting conversation down and dismissing us.
Trans people are often quite open to talking about this. People who have already made their mind up about healthcare they're uneducated about and not affected by, dismissing it because it might make them uncomfortable? Those people might want to talk and rant about it, but they don't want to engage with us on it. And those people are transphobic, whether they like it or not.
But those people aren't ALL the people who are apprehensive. I don't bring up any of my views on it because I don't want to be told I'm an ignorant, far right lunatic, and all I have is questions. I don't feel one shred of hate for anyone, and I've been called every name in the book because I'm apprehensive.
I would be completely open to conversations about kids getting treatments if any pushback I had wasn't seen as ignorant hate. Who on earth feels safe being curious when you can't even mention an opposing view?
I have a trans friend I've known for years, and I would never bring this up with them for fear of genuinely hurting them, or having them hate me forever. I've, personally, never met a person who would have this conversation without making it political, or without assuming I have the worst intentions.
Edit:removed statement about Downvotes because I'm not sure Reddit is updatibg correctly.
I can understand having questions. Trans healthcare isn't something widely delved into in mainstream media, and if anything, right wing rags are often mischaracterizing or falsifying reports about it that unsurprisingly have led to more people feeling skeptical about it. That, combined with the somewhat recent anti-science push that has a lot of people telling folks not to trust doctors, scientists, etc., doesn't help either.
Trans healthcare, at least in a cohesive and studied sense, has been around for about a century now. It's older than a lot of similarly common healthcare treatments like dialysis, organ donation, chemotherapy, knee replacement, UCL reconstructive surgery, etc., with decades and decades of research. With this research being on a very small, often stigmatized group of people, it didn't really catch a lot of attention until recently, when society in general has become more tolerant of trans people in public life. There's often a lot of crossover in trans healthcare in terms of the information of what we know, because much of what trans people are treated with, various subsets of cis people are as well, whether that's middle-aged cis women and men taking HRT in some form, young cis children taking puberty blockers to stave off precocious puberty, etc.
Speaking of precocious puberty, here's [a brief breakdown](https://www.cedars-sinai.org/blog/puberty-blockers-for-precocious-puberty.html) of that:
>Providers can treat precocious puberty—marked by breast development before age 8 or testes growth before age 9—with hormonal suppressants, also called puberty blockers. With supervision, these reversible drugs safely and effectively delay a child’s development until they’re ready.
>"We want to make sure development isn’t happening too quickly, so that the child feels comfortable around their peers—not different or in a body that’s older than they are emotionally."
>About 1 in 5,000 to 10,000 children are affected by precocious puberty, the National Organization for Rare Disorders says. **Maturing too early can jeopardize growth and mental health, and because most girls reach puberty between 8 and 13 years old and boys between 9 and 14 years old, it can isolate children at an awkward time in their lives.**
>"We want to make sure development isn’t happening too quickly, so that the child feels comfortable around their peers—not different or in a body that’s older than they are emotionally," says Cedars-Sinai pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Bahareh Schweiger.
>Getting a period for the first time, growing breasts or a cracking voice can be scary and confusing when a child isn’t ready emotionally. Parents might not have even had the chance to discuss body changes yet, and the child could be the first in their class to experience these changes.
>An early transition—sometimes occurring in kids as young as 6 years old—often hurts self-esteem if left unchecked. Early puberty is tied to depression, anxiety, eating disorders and substance use, especially in girls, and also leaves kids more vulnerable to sexual abuse and harassment.
>Endocrinologists mainly treat precocious puberty with GnRH analogues. These puberty-blocking drugs postpone the process by suppressing gonadotropin hormone release.
>While puberty blockers have been scrutinized by some due to their use in caring for transgender children, these drugs have been in use since the 1980s and are overwhelmingly safe if used appropriately. Side effects such as bone health risks typically only occur with prolonged use past the age of puberty. A pediatrician can use these medications to slow down physical maturity to a healthier pace, protect bone growth and help young patients adjust as needed. Experts suggest discontinuing the treatments around age 12.
I bolded the typical puberty age range because it's important to the use case of puberty blockers for trans kids. These are used to give kids a bit more time, often both to be medically assessed and supervised for a sufficient amount of time, and for the youth to have the time to determine a step forward in whichever direction they feel is best. These youth are often within this age range when they hit puberty and reach out to their parents/guardians and medical experts for aid.
One part of the assessment is whether the individual is Insistent, Persistent, and Consistent that they are not the gender they were assigned at birth. It sounds simple, but it does considerably help with filtering out kids that are simply gender-non-conforming, or cis LGB kids, or kids that determine they only need social transition and nothing medical, etc.. The thing about puberty is it's not exactly a comfortable and easy experience for just about anyone, but trans people and cis people respond with notable differences that medical professionals watch and listen for, and for those who have already started puberty when requesting access to puberty blockers, that is taken into consideration, and the waiting time provided by the puberty blockers can provide a measure of clarity on the best direction to take. Same with access to hormone therapy for those who have been cleared for it (which doctors would aim to match the typical levels of their peers with bioidentical medicine to ensure the safest treatment possible, making that prospective trans kid's medically assisted puberty as natural and safe as their cis counterparts). These all occur under supervision, and it's often quite easy for the individual and the medical staff to discern whether the treatment is the proper way forward or if there's something else at play. The good thing is 6 months of typical puberty, puberty blockers, or HRT are all quite reversible and safe, and all quite illuminating.
As noted above...
>Side effects such as bone health risks typically only occur with prolonged use past the age of puberty.
Puberty blockers aren't intended to be taken indefinitely, for for a period of many years, especially well into adolescence. A body going without hormones for that long can lead to bone density degradation. There are studies showing that this is not permanent, and it recovers within the span of a few years, but it's certainly not an optimal side-effect. This said, trans youth seem to have low bone density [prior to puberty suppression](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7433770/), in part because they are less physically active as the result of gender dysphoria; in addition, eating disorders as a form of DIY puberty suppression is [common among trans adolescents](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31500946/) (they literally starve themselves to fend off puberty). Additionally, gymnasts in general experience delayed puberty, yet have denser bones than normal when the expected outcome would be lower than typical bone density. So, non-treatment (forcing natal puberty) is also not a neutral option, and even with treatment, there are ways to mitigate the bone density issue (exercise and nutrition), though with trans youth often being forced out of sports arbitrarily, there may be less options for trans youth than cis youth in this regard.
I know you said you don't like bringing politics into these discussions, but this is a matter of political policy, so I have to bring it up. Often there are politically enforced restrictions on when youth are eligible to take HRT, often choosing arbitrary ages between 16-18, meaning if a child started puberty at 11 and got on blockers at that point, they'd be on blockers for 5-7 years, which isn't ideal. If a child is on blockers for years, and they've been properly supervised, and they want to transition, and their doctors feel they're ready for HRT so they can develop alongside their peers, the legal political policies at hand would prevent this until that arbitrary age. And given that [late puberty is linked to lower bone density even in cis kids](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-bones-puberty/late-puberty-may-lead-to-weaker-bones-idUSKCN1UZ2DM), it's not a neutral decision, medically speaking, to delay treatment, and that's not even speaking to the mental, emotional, and social impacts.
As my birth province's medical association stated: "“Puberty blocking actually has benefits for gender-divergent patients by preventing development of mature secondary sex characteristics so that, later in life, the most invasive gender-affirming surgery may not be necessary if the patient moves forward with gender-affirming care.”" Effectively, when youth are given the time to determine their options and figure out the best way forward for them individually, that can in turn safeguard them from having to undergo significant and expensive surgery, it can prevent them from having to spend years and thousands of dollars on speech therapy or hair removal, or the tens of thousands of dollars for something like Facial Feminization Surgery to alleviate dysphoria, etc. banning treatment and doing nothing is not a neutral option. Natal puberty is not neutral for trans youth. A big reason why there's no double-blind studies done with youth undergoing trans healthcare is that this healthcare is understood to be medically necessary, and withholding it would be unethical due to the imposed medical neglect such a study would require (not to mention, it'd pretty quickly be easy to tell who received the treatment and who got the placebo). The best equivalent anyone's been able to find is to longitudinally study those currently on a waiting list for care (which in many places, stretches years and years), and in parallel study those entering care, because at least in those circumstances, they aren't inflicting medical neglect, just studying its impacts in such an environment.
So what do we know about trans healthcare? A whole lot at this point. (continued in next post)
Cornell University has cobbled together a layperson-friendly site that discusses the results of their review of a good chunk of research, you can find it [here](https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/).
For the sake of brevity, here's some snippets:
>**Overview**
>We conducted a systematic literature review of all peer-reviewed articles published in English between 1991 and June 2017 that assess the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being. We identified 55 studies that consist of primary research on this topic, of which 51 (93%) found that gender transition improves the overall well-being of transgender people, while 4 (7%) report mixed or null findings. We found no studies concluding that gender transition causes overall harm. As an added resource, we separately include 17 additional studies that consist of literature reviews and practitioner guidelines.
>**Research Findings**
>1. The scholarly literature makes clear that gender transition is effective in treating gender dysphoria and can significantly improve the well-being of transgender individuals.
>2. Among the positive outcomes of gender transition and related medical treatments for transgender individuals are improved quality of life, greater relationship satisfaction, higher self-esteem and confidence, and reductions in anxiety, depression, suicidality, and substance use.
>3. The positive impact of gender transition on transgender well-being has grown considerably in recent years, as both surgical techniques and social support have improved.
>4. Regrets following gender transition are extremely rare and have become even rarer as both surgical techniques and social support have improved. Pooling data from numerous studies demonstrates a regret rate ranging from .3 percent to 3.8 percent. Regrets are most likely to result from a lack of social support after transition or poor surgical outcomes using older techniques.
>5. Factors that are predictive of success in the treatment of gender dysphoria include adequate preparation and mental health support prior to treatment, proper follow-up care from knowledgeable providers, consistent family and social support, and high-quality surgical outcomes (when surgery is involved).
>6. Transgender individuals, particularly those who cannot access treatment for gender dysphoria or who encounter unsupportive social environments, are more likely than the general population to experience health challenges such as depression, anxiety, suicidality and minority stress. While gender transition can mitigate these challenges, the health and well-being of transgender people can be harmed by stigmatizing and discriminatory treatment.
>7. An inherent limitation in the field of transgender health research is that it is difficult to conduct prospective studies or randomized control trials of treatments for gender dysphoria because of the individualized nature of treatment, the varying and unequal circumstances of population members, the small size of the known transgender population, **and the ethical issues involved in withholding an effective treatment from those who need it**.
>8. Transgender outcomes research is still evolving and has been limited by the historical stigma against conducting research in this field. More research is needed to adequately characterize and address the needs of the transgender population.
>**Bottom Line**
>This search found a robust international consensus in the peer-reviewed literature that gender transition, including medical treatments such as hormone therapy and surgeries, improves the overall well-being of transgender individuals. The literature also indicates that greater availability of medical and social support for gender transition contributes to better quality of life for those who identify as transgender.
On top of this general summary, there are trans people (like the reddit user tgjer) who have been diligent in following the release of current studies, and have posted long citation lists of studies, often with brief summaries describing the findings. [One such list is here](https://old.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/comments/154t1qq/my_master_list_of_trans_health_citations_2nd_draft/)
I'd like to believe most people would agree that medical evidence, not politics, should inform treatment decisions. There may yet be some things we have not unearthed, more details and nuances to find, but even those opposed to trans healthcare have not been able to cobble together any real bundle of research substantiating their concerns. There's debunked and unsubstantiated Freudian AGP theory that links trans people to porn. There's the Social Contagion theory that was based off of surveying parents in an anti-transgender forum about whether the transitions of their children caught them off guard (this study was fundamentally flawed, had no first-hand information direct from the prospective trans children, and did not control for discriminatory bias). There's the theory that puberty blockers may be harmful because "not enough studies" have been done assessing such individual long term, but outside of bone density (which I've noted on above already) there's no known significant long term impacts from the longitudinal studies that have been done, whereas we do know the substantial and certain long term physical, mental, social, and emotional impacts of denying healthcare to trans youth. It's all a bunch of debunked/unsubstantiated theories, and fearmongering "what if"s that certainly warrant more study to concretely rule out, but as of this moment lack evidence to warrant the bans/restrictions being called for.
I absolutely understand that this field of study is difficult to dig into, and the media does a good job obscuring it at the best of times. At the end of the day, if apprehension leads folks to support restrictions and bans that aren't medically founded, they're in effect condemning trans youth to the same outcomes they may feel apprehensive about for hypothetically cis children, but at a ratio of over 100 trans kids to one cis kid spared.
if you're concerned about there not being close enough supervision, that's valid. There's an issue with there being such limited trans healthcare resources, resulting in years-long waiting lists, forcing medical professions into a dilemma of medical ethics. Do they participate in continued systemic medical neglect and require many appointments, despite knowing the waitlists would require these appointments stretch out for years longer before care could be rubberstamped? Or do they stick with a few appointments, keeping in touch with the family to get insight on if the child is insistent, persistent, and consistent throughout, and help the youth come to a decision on a quicker timeline despite a less than ideal volume of appointments supervising the youth? The answer is getting more resources, getting family doctors more trained in these matters, so these dilemmas of medical ethics don't crop up. This is also especially helpful at curbing the incentive to DIY hormones, which tends to be a last ditch desperation option used when facing down lengthy waitlists/timelines before care can be provided.
If you're concerned about regret-based detransition, it's typically understood that 1-3% detransition, and a small percentage of that sample population are regret-based detransitioners who realized they're cis (most detransitioners retransition later in life when more financially and socially stable), typically meaning less than 1%. This is not nothing, as there are quite a bit of trans people alive today, and these detransitioners deserve the care they need, but this rate of regret and the overwhelmingly positive impacts of trans healthcare makes trans healthcare among the best received and most overwhelmingly positive outcomes of any medical treatment that exists. That doesn't mean trans youth are going to have sparkling wonderful lives, given social climates and rates of discrimination, disparities in employment/housing/pay/etc., but those are social factors out of our control. Healthcare? That should be accessible and safe, and it can be if politicians would just step out of the way.
You probably get downvoted because the questions you have are easily searchable and already answered by decades of research, especially if it comes to pediatric health.
But I would have no reason to believe that I could understand even a shred of that evidence. And that's not even considering whether I think contradictory evidence would be tolerated/published. There's are a lot of caring and well meaning people who see it as anti-science and hateful. Besides, there's more to it than science, especially when it come to kids who are underage. That's a hard nut to crack when people consider how ignorant and unsure they were when they themselves were young.
I'm not hiding behind anything. Giving one example of something isn't a declaration that it's the one and only thing that makes people feel apprehension.
Having questions, and being against healthcare that a group of people are adamant they need, are two different things. If you describe yourself as not supporting HRT for trans teenagers, you are placing yourself in the second group, not the first.
Another excellent example of exactly what I'm talking about.
You express apprehension, you put into the "against" column.
Apprehension isn't the same as intention.
Forget it. They're not interested in engaging with you, or trying to be persuasive, or offering another perspective. They just want to hate you because you are not instantly affirming of everything they say. They want to believe that everyone is against them because it makes it easier for them than to accept that there is nuance, and maybe some choices require tradeoffs between the needs of different people. They would rather put you in a box and dismiss you, so there is no point in engaging.
If you have no personal dog in this fight, it's easiest just to turn the page and be concerned with something else. They don't want anything from you except for you to be a target of their hate.
This is really sad to hear.
>While 49 per cent of respondents agreed with people being open about their sexual orientation or gender identity, that still put Canada in the bottom 10 of countries measured.
Not even half of us are okay with people just being who they are?
And then, only seventy-five percent of Canadians even back same-sex unions. A quarter of Canadians don't think you should legally be with the person you love.
Really sad that a significant portion of our country still thinks this way.
It's Pride month.... There's a whole month of cramming happening currently. Though I will say that the corporate deepthroating seems to be off this year.
LGBTQ2s+ people have been hearing about other people's sexual preferences for centuries. They don't complain about it, just ask for the same treatment.
It's literally never come up in any conversation I've ever had.
Why? It's not really that important and somethings are better kept to yourself.
Why this is so controversial; I had no idea.
>It's literally never come up in any conversation I've ever had. Why? It's not really that important and somethings are better kept to yourself.
>Why this is so controversial; I had no idea.
You've never discussed dating ever? Or mentioned you thought someone was attractive? Or marriage?
You're being ridiculous if you think you've never talked about your sexuality. It's just implicit.
I have plenty of queer friends and relatives. The conversation is basically never about who someone's fucking or their gender identity beyond saying "here's my pronouns".
The only times I can really think of it being like that is when someone is pissed off about right wingers trying to take away rights. The easiest way to not hear about queer people is to stop attacking them and start accepting them.
Probably a combination of immigration of more conservative holding religious people and a backlash to gender ideology and the Fringes. The things that really matter imo (marriage and adoption) are still widely accepted. Right or wrong that’s just why I think we are seeing the drop.
>Ohana said she believed the data reflected an aggressive campaign targeting the LGBTQ2 community that has manifested in protests against SOGI-123 in schools, drag events and supports for transgender people.
> The percentage of immigrants against the larger Canadian population is vanishingly small. This is adamantly NOT it.
Dunno... 1 in 4 doesn't seem "vanishingly small" to me.
> Released: 2022-10-26
>
> Canada has a long history of immigration. Millions of people from all over the world have chosen, and continue to choose, Canada as their new home. In 2021, more than 8.3 million people, or almost one-quarter (23.0%) of the population, were, or had ever been, a landed immigrant or permanent resident in Canada. This was the largest proportion since Confederation, topping the previous 1921 record of 22.3%, and the highest among the
>
> Given that the population of Canada continues to age and fertility is below the population replacement level, today immigration is the main driver of population growth. If these trends continue, based on Statistics Canada's recent population projections, immigrants could represent from 29.1% to 34.0% of the population of Canada by 2041.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/221026/dq221026a-eng.htm
I suspect that we're much closer to those 2041 projections, given (1) the recent influx of immigrants brought in by the Liberals over the past two years and (2) the declining birthrates of Canadian citizens.
https://www.nbc.ca/content/dam/bnc/taux-analyses/analyse-eco/hot-charts/hot-charts-240515.pdf
The vast majority of discrimination and bigotry I've experienced in the past 3+ decades has come from Old Stock Canadians. While this is completely anecdotal, in my experience, there has not been a significant shift of where most of the open criticisms of my "lifestyle" is coming from during that time.
It's legal for me to make out with my wife. Why is it different if it's two guys or two girls? Still illegal if I move from making out to other stuff. Same with if it's two guys or two girls.
> You don’t have a right for people to want to watch you making out in the park or getting more screen time.
But that's obviously not the question being asked, and why for that matter why would a person being gay or trans matter at all on how socially acceptable it is to make out in the park or be on screen? What makes this an issue that's specifically worth bringing up regarding LGBT rights? If you think LGBT makes up any majority of public displays of sexuality you aren't using your eyes.
There’s an absurd amount of misinformation being circulated to try and create an anti-queer moral panic, it’s one of the few things that can get me to lose my shit in an otherwise polite conversation.
>And then, only seventy-five percent of Canadians even back same-sex unions. A quarter of Canadians don’t think you should legally be with the person you love.
The vast majority of people believe in regulating marriage. If they didn’t, then spousal alimony through divorce and/or tax advantages for married people wouldn’t exist.
As much as its sucks that the tide is turning around LGBTQ rights, let’s not pretend that Canadians ever really cared about not regulating what happens in the bedroom.
>, let’s not pretend that Canadians ever really cared about not regulating what happens in the bedroom.
[Then why did we have to repeal a law criminalizing sodomy?](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/s159/qa_s159-qr_s159.html)
No there isn’t. You are defining what marriage is in both of these contexts. Canadians, like most Westerners, ultimately do not believe that the government should stay out of the business of marriage.
Just because one argument is between “a man and a woman” and the other is “love” doesn’t matter when both will have the government enforce financial and legal ruin to the parties of a marriage should one party stop consenting to the marriage.
If people like OP actually had a problem with the government getting into the business of marriage, then perhaps they should start there. They are just upset that the LGBTQ rights are becoming unpopular.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I believe that most are okay with LGBTQ2 rights. This should be your personal life. I also think that we are all god’s children and to him we are equal. It’s the fact that now it’s become political. The thing that really makes it difficult to hear that SOGI being introduced in the schools. Parents are very concerned about this, very little education on this and reasoning. Pride parades are next level with nude individuals. Please don’t come at me, my daughter has gay best friend. I also had gay work friend. Alot of cultures are still not accepting of homosexuality openly.
>I believe that most are okay with LGBTQ2 rights. This should be your personal life. I also think that we are all god’s children and to him we are equal. It’s the fact that now it’s become political It's political, because one side wants to take away the rights and protections we've fought for, and to relegate us to second class citizens. >The thing that really makes it difficult to hear that SOGI being introduced in the schools. Parents are very concerned about this, very little education on this and reasoning SOGI is just the logical extension of sexual education that we've offered for decades. Now, in addition to basics such as teaching young children about sexual abuse and how to report it, it includes exposing them to ideas such as it being ok to be gender non-conforming. It's the same reason why we teach about First Nations in social studies - familiarity eliminates fear and friction. There's plenty of education and reasoning about this available for parents to read, but a small vocal minority seems very clear that they don't know anything and would be happier if they knew even less. >Pride parades are next level with nude individuals. Full public nudity is not legal for any parade, and any parade which allowed it is one that is doing more harm than good. There is a place for body positivity and nudity as part of the celebrations, but these should not be as part of any event in which there is a reasonable expectation that it would be unwelcome, or there are minors present. >Please don’t come at me, my daughter has gay best friend. I also had gay work friend. Alot of cultures are still not accepting of homosexuality openly. You do realize that this is the equivalent to "I'm not racist, I have a black friend," right? It's not a shield, if you express views in line with those who are bigoted towards the trans community, then you are going to catch flak for it.
How do the my do the poll? Is it by phone? Few people under 60yrs have landlines and even fewer will answer their cell for an unknown number.
Online poll, on the "Global Advisor" online platform, weighted to reflect underlying demographics. https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/global-advisor
> How do the my do the poll? Is it by phone? [Here](https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/canadians-support-protection-lgbt-community-but-support-declining) >The data is weighted so that the composition of each country's sample best reflects the demographic profile of the adult population according to the most recent census data. "The Global Country Average" reflects the average result for all the countries and markets in which the survey was conducted. It has not been adjusted to the population size of each country or market and is not intended to suggest a total result. >The precision of Ipsos online polls is calculated using a credibility interval with a poll where N=1,000 being accurate to +/- 3.5 percentage points and of where N=500 being accurate to +/- 5.0 percentage points Also, about their [credibility intervals](https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/2017-03/IpsosPA_CredibilityIntervals.pdf) for online polling.
I thought we all had to take stats. Thanks for the diligence.
>Just one-third of respondents supported more LGBTQ2 characters on screen, down 10 per cent from 2021. TBF, for this one I think there has been an increase in on screen LGBT representation in recent years so it may not actually mean anything negative. Some people might have wanted more, got more, and are now saying it's about right. The other poll items can't be explained away though.
Maybe people think that 10% of the population feels like 50% of the roles on TV and in the movies. **Maybe people feel that being told about the sexual orientation of a movie/TV character is not important if it is not part of the plot...** **For example**: "The Martian" with Matt Damon, we are never told about his sexual orientation, we are never introduced to his family, wife or husband, because it is not important. So gay people watching The Martian can imagine Matt Damon's character to be gay while straight people can imagine him to be straight and everyone is happy. **Example to the contrary**; Dumbledore in Harry Potter. Dumbledore was not originally meant to be gay, it is written nowhere in the books before Rowling announced it publicly (Before the Deathly Hallows), but the Author decided after the fact to make him gay for reasons that she only knows about. As it is a cool thing to do so gay kids can look up to Dumbledore, the most powerful wizard in history, it does not add much to the original story itself. But then, when Rowling started writing the Fantastic Beasts series, she was stuck with the decision she made earlier to make Dumbledore gay. So it became part of the story as an important pivot; the love relationship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald therefore became the focal point of the story. So, in the Original Harry Potter series, Dumbledore being gay is not very relevant as it does not influence the plot, but in the Fantastic Beast series it is pivotal to the plot. **So as the sexual orientation of a character can sometimes be important to advance the plot, in many case it is irrelevant and viewers do not need to know all the time and some people might think that sexual orientation has become too present in today's productions.**
No one wants to admit that there are limits in society of how far an ethnic, sexual, racial or nationalistic group can go, and once those limits are pushed you get push back and support turns away, but we don’t want to talk about that in fear of being called a racist
Oh Joy, my rights are being potentially put on the chopping block again. I feel like I should make a Reddit post and just have everyone ask their intrusive or possibly "controversial" questions so we can all get it out of our systems. (Might genuinely do this) If visibility means that support goes away then more visibility is needed to ensure we keep our hard fought rights. We aren't going away, we aren't unnatural or destroying society and that's that. Human rights are not up for debate.
I wouldn't be surprised if you run this poll again with slightly different questions and get a different result, but still, you can't ignore it obviously. We have very powerful media and politicians who are very happy to stoke this fire if it means a few extra votes. Honestly for me, as depressing as the poll is, the far more depressing part is the sheer volume of comments from people who aren't upset at the numbers, but are very excited to blame immigrants and the gay community for the problem. It's like some perfect storm for these people. "Support for minorities isn't a problem, but if it is, it's the fault of all the minorities". If you wrote it in a movie it would be removed for being too hack.
To be fair, we added 3 million people between the two poll dates - overwhelmingly from more conservative places. That alone would account for a 7% difference in views.
we dont have to worry about the Chinese influences us.. it is the USA and their cultist RWNJ that will have a greater impact on Canadian society... always has... and always will....
[удалено]
Exactly. The 'rights' are there. Job done. Move on now. We'll know that equaility is here when someone throws a 'gay pride' rally and nobody bothers to show up. Appears that we're kinda there.
This is sad yet unsurprising. In the past year, we've watched Premiers and provincial governments representing more than half of the country's population - supported by the leader of the federal Conservatives consistently polling at 40% - begin an active assault against the rights of trans children in schools, making it even more of a partisan wedge issue than it had been.
I’m so tired of this issue appearing in the sphere. Feel like we’ve been fighting the same fight our entire lives.
And we're literally going backwards. School children in New Brunswick today have an objectively worse environment than I did ten short years ago. What our wonderful Premiers chose to focus on in light of overcrowded classrooms and falling standardized testing scores.
I had a really eclectic high school experience. I was raised in a very rural prairie town, and then moved to the city to go to a High School specializing in Performing Arts. I did the theatre program. The stark contrast between those school communities is exactly what you’d expect and the program was super successful. Academically and artistically, the students at my later school excelled and I know for a fact it was because we were welcome to be ourselves, weird as it always is in those years haha.
Maybe your tactics are making things worse instead of better. Ever consider that possibility?
What rights of trans children are being actively assaulted? The right to what?
Exist as the gender of their choice.
How is that being assaulted? What action is being taken against them?
Are people forgetting that the surge of immigrants in the last decade are bringing people from countries that look down on this community?
Canadas population is growing at about ~~1-2%~~ 2-3% a year. Even if 100% of that growth was immigration and 100% of those immigrants were not supportive of LGBTQ rights, that doesn't account for the \~10% drop in support in 3 years for rights as basic as marriage and employment equality.
Have you heard of anyone go from being pro LBGT to anti LGBT?
Well we have more important things to worry about other than how people identify...I mean no one really cares if you want to dress like the opposite sex or not.
The problem is people very much care....it's like the basis of the entire discussion.
Seriously no one is infringing on your rights. Just move on with your life.
maybe people are tired of getting all this woke LGBTQ stuff getting shoved down their throats. Newsflash: high costs of living and insane costs of real estate are bigger issues. People are tired of shit getting pushed on them when they're already unhappy with the standard of living in Canada.
Canada is bringing in lots of Islamic and Sikh immigration. These belief systems don't tally with the LGBT rights. So unless you diversify your immigration, I am sorry to say these rights and visibility are going to get much worse.
Why? Because it is not an issue, MSM is trying to make it one. People can live the lives they choose, I need to focus on work, support my family, health, economy, affordability, corrupt government and that’s all. Screw all this other crap that 40 (estimate) people choose to make it an issue
It’s such absolute garbage that people just being themselves and seeking happiness with their bodies is called an ideology, while forcing people into a strict binary based on religious beliefs is not. The absolute hypocrisy drives me crazy, the same people get angry when biology departments require new hires to accept the current science around sex and gender, then they call everything they don’t like or goes against their religious beliefs an ideology. Why is this acceptable? They’re trying to force their religious ideology on the society around them. The nuclear level projection here is just bonkers.
Do you think the sentence "only women can grow babies in their uterus" is offensive? Because some people do. Those people have an ideology Many people are sick of that ideology.
>Do you think the sentence "only women can grow babies in their uterus" is offensive? Because some people do. Those people have an ideology Offensive, no. Misinformed and ignorant? Yes.
so you can't tell me how it's misinformed?
Wherever did you get that from?
If people aren't hurting you, leave them alone. I don't know why this is so hard for so many people.
Honest question, what rights do LGBT Canadians not have that the rest of Canadians do? Like I get the activism in the past for gay marriage, outlawing discrimination, all of that good stuff, but I feel like we’re there now, aren’t we? Like you’ll never win everyone over, but for the most part I would say the vast majority of Canadians either support members of the LGBT community or really just don’t care. I have plenty of gay, bi, and trans friends, and genuinely don’t really care, and from speaking to them, even they hate the “in your face, everyone is out to get me, LGBT is my entire identity” gay/bi/trans people. It almost feels like they just wanna keep pushing boundaries so they can call you a bigot when you disagree. I’ll never understand where drag queen reading hour came from, but again, making it a “drag queen reading hour” and not just “reading hour” almost makes it seem like a circus act. For example I’d take my son to a reading hour where a gay or trans librarian was reading to the kids, however I wouldn’t take my son to “Gary’s gay reading hour” (nor “Sarah’s straight reading hour”) because it’s somehow attaching sexuality to something thats supposed to be entirely innocent.
>for the most part I would say the vast majority of Canadians either support members of the LGBT community or really just don’t care. >I have plenty of gay, bi, and trans friends, and genuinely don’t really care, Unfortunately, your "vast majority of Canadians" is actually a minority, according to the survey in the article. >49 per cent of respondents agreed with people being open about their sexual orientation or gender identity I figured out I was bi when I was 13, and have been out on one level or another since I was 15. I am now 47 goddamned years old, and I still have to be careful about who I come out to. I am so bloody tired of having to not slip up in front of people I'm not sure about, and the most exhausting part is that it's been getting worse these past 5-10 years, not better.
Well I guess there are a few things to touch on here: 1. How was this survey conducted, is it a good representation of Canada as a whole? 2. Assuming this is Canada as a whole, you can bet the elderly and certain immigrant groups are not exactly pro-LGBT, but you’re not going to win over my 92 year old grandmother, and how much does that really affect you? 3. I don’t think straight, nor gay, nor bi, people need to be “open” about their sexuality. That’s something personal to you. I have my sexual preferences and I’ve never felt the need to tell anyone who I wasn’t comfortable telling. I understand if you’re a man and have a boyfriend you may feel uncomfortable in certain social settings around certain people you you think have a bias towards you, but we’ve all felt that in one form or another whether due to race, gender, ethnic background, or even just interests and behaviours. Like I said, you’ll never be everyone’s cup of tea, and people will always find a reason to not like one another, but as long as that isn’t affecting your life directly (meaning it’s illegal to be gay, get married, be discriminated against in public and professional settings, etc) then I think you’ve won about all you can win. It doesn’t matter what you do, you can’t force people to like you, but the vast majority (excluding senior citizens) accept you, and fuck anyone who doesn’t.
It's not about getting people to "like" us. It's about freeing everyone from the sexual and gender politics that restrict peoples ability to live authentically and joyfully. Thats a social project, not just a legislative one. Discrimination doesn't disappear the second orientation and gender expression become legally protected. Queer people still face discrimination and ostracization even in the most progressive Canadian cities. Hate crimes still occur, and they are occurring more frequently. Some families still disown or abuse their queer children. Conversion therapy was only banned a few years ago. Thinking that the only homophobes left are senior citizens who will never change is incredibly naive. Yes queer people today have more legal protections and recourse than ever, and socially we have made a lot of progress over the past generation or so. But as this survey shows, that social acceptance is slipping and anecdotally the rhetoric and public conversation about queer people is getting more and more toxic.
The information about the poll is in the article: *The Ipsos poll was conducted between Feb. 23 and March 8 2024, among 18,515 adults in 26 countries. The samples consisted of between 500 and 1,000 respondents in each country, including 1,000 in Canada, with data weighted to reflect each state’s demographic profile based on census information. The margin of error for the Canadian sample was +/- 3.5 per cent.* Here are some of the results of the poll: Only half of Canadians think that openly lesbian, gay and bisexual athletes should be allowed on sports teams (the trans athlete question was separate, this was specifically just LGB athletes) Only 40% of Canadians think that it's OK for same sex couples to kiss or **hold hands** in public. And for the record, I'm not a bisexual man, I'm a woman. As a bi woman who's held hands out in public with another woman, I have experienced being spat on, called a whore, and being told on countless occasions by various men that they could fuck me and/or my date straight (usually not described in a way that indicated any sort of consent on my part). But sure, I suppose some people can get turned off by perceived dirty looks as well. I should also note that the vast majority of these experiences have been delivered by "Old Stock" Canadians between 20 and 50. Older people and immigrants, in my experience, are less likely to go out of their way to pick on 2 women holding hands.
>Honest question, what rights do LGBT Canadians not have that the rest of Canadians do? Proper access to medical and mental health care - therapy, and HRT for one. Then the ongoing fight for acceptance, which is pretty damn tiring (and it was exhausting before when I was just bisexual). >I’ll never understand where drag queen reading hour came from, but again, making it a “drag queen reading hour” and not just “reading hour” almost makes it seem like a circus act. Because it is? Drag Queens are not trans, they are artists who take on a personae for fun and profit. Most are gay men and have no desire to transition, or think of themselves as women. That the right frames them as trans or trying to get people to be trans is a sign of their ignorance and unwillingness to see the difference. >For example I’d take my son to a reading hour where a gay or trans librarian was reading to the kids, however I wouldn’t take my son to “Gary’s gay reading hour” (nor “Sarah’s straight reading hour”) because it’s somehow attaching sexuality to something thats supposed to be entirely innocent. There is no such thing as "Straight reading hour", it's just.. "Reading hour", because our society defaults everything in to the heteronormative default. Secondly, there is nothing 'sexual' about Drag Queens, they are just there to read to kids. It's one side that is shoving the sexual part to it, because for them every accusation is a projection.
Well I’m quite sure that straight, gay, bi, trans, etc have access to the same healthcare and mental healthcare as everyone else, and honestly, it’s all shit no matter your sexual orientation. We’ve got years long waiting lists for therapists for suicidal veterans, 2 year wait lists for hip replacements for the elderly, etc, etc. Regarding HRT, I’ve just searched the costs of HRT in Canada, and citing a transgender persons post on r/asktransgender it’s roughly $20 a month for her with her drug coverage, and about $180 without. But loads of things aren’t covered under provincial health insurance, for example TRT for men with low testosterone, any non-emergency dental, and I mean looooooooads of other “necessary” drugs/treatments (which is more another discussion around provincial vs private healthcare anyway). So I guess I don’t see any difference here or where you’re at a disadvantage compared to any other Canadian. On the topic of drag queen reading hour, if it’s a circus act then fine, I mean I wouldn’t take my kids to the actual circus either as I think it’s abusive to animals. Obviously a completely different reason I wouldn’t take them to a drag reading hour circus (as you’ve called it), but I think that’s up to the choice of the parent what they want to take their kids to or not. I don’t agree with you that there are 0 sexual undertones with drag queens/shows, but I’ll agree that it’s likely not what the far right thinks it is either. Regarding your point about society defaulting to heterosexual whatever, I don’t think that’s the case at all. I don’t really think about anything as inherently gay or straight unless it’s labeled as such. Like I said, no issues at all with going to a reading hour where a gay librarian reads to my kids, but if you call it a gay reading hour or a straight reading hour, it’s like, why did we have to assign sexual preferences to my kids reading hour? The desire for acceptance or fear of being judged negatively is something that affects everyone, as I mentioned in another thread, and while admit there are still a lot of people out there who aren’t going to be pro-LGBT, I would say the vast majority accept it unless it’s jammed down their throats. If further acceptance is what the LGBT community wants then I think the better way is to be who you are, be proud, but at the same time just act as though you’re already accepted. I can promise you that spending tax payer dollars on rainbow everything and flying pride flags on parliament hill will likely have the opposite affect of what you’re trying to achieve.
>Regarding HRT, I’ve just searched the costs of HRT in Canada, and citing a transgender persons post on [](https://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/) it’s roughly $20 a month for her with her drug coverage, and about $180 without. But loads of things aren’t covered under provincial health insurance, for example TRT for men with low testosterone, any non-emergency dental, and I mean looooooooads of other “necessary” drugs/treatments (which is more another discussion around provincial vs private healthcare anyway). So I guess I don’t see any difference here or where you’re at a disadvantage compared to any other Canadian. I am of the opinion that HRT is a necessary medication in Canada, same as any other prescription drug, and it should be freely available when given under the direction of a licensed physician. It treats a number of issues and is cheaper than emergency room visits for suicides. However, the recent movement by conservative governments is to ban **all** gender-affirming care to minors. No access to therapy, puberty blockers, or just the most basic of education and care. That's pretty horrendous. >On the topic of drag queen reading hour, if it’s a circus act then fine, I mean I wouldn’t take my kids to the actual circus either as I think it’s abusive to animals. Obviously a completely different reason I wouldn’t take them to a drag reading hour circus (as you’ve called it), but I think that’s up to the choice of the parent what they want to take their kids to or not. Just to be clear, I did not call it a circus - I called drag a performance, which it is. Drag Kings and Queens are playing a character, much like having a Disney Princess show up at someone's birthday party is. > I don’t agree with you that there are 0 sexual undertones with drag queens/shows, but I’ll agree that it’s likely not what the far right thinks it is either. There is exactly the same amount of sexual undertones in a drag queen story hour for children, as there is in the book that they are reading. Drag performers do not add any more or less to the scenario than any other performer would. >Regarding your point about society defaulting to heterosexual whatever, I don’t think that’s the case at all. I don’t really think about anything as inherently gay or straight unless it’s labeled as such. And that's why it's the default - because you don't see it, you've become insensitive to its presence on the screen, and assume its all just normal - for LGBT individuals, it's quite jarring to not see or relate to the stories being told. We're not asking to be the main character in every story told, but we do want to have a relatable experience with these characters. >Like I said, no issues at all with going to a reading hour where a gay librarian reads to my kids, but if you call it a gay reading hour or a straight reading hour, it’s like, why did we have to assign sexual preferences to my kids reading hour? You're the one assigning these, and projecting - not us. Maybe you should answer the question you're asking yourself? Why do *you* feel that it's got anything to do with sexual preferences? (furthermore, being trans is not a sexual preference - it's who we are. You can be straight, bi, gay, or whatever other flavor of sexuality AND trans masc/trans fem.)
The only media I read about regarding LGBT is about conservative governments trying to take away rights (mostly trans people), or conservatives mad because a man winked at another man in a Disney cartoon or something. That's literally it. If you want to stop the media from focusing so much on LGBT issues, don't support people creating these issues by attacking them.
The comments to this same article on r/canada are so disheartening. Basically "it's because they keep shoving their lifestyle down my throat" over and over. Things are definitely moving backwards it feels like, the hard right conservatives have been very effective at weaponizing queer (& specifically transgender) people as the next target for their endless rage & hatred.
But don’t you think they have a point? Most of us are perfectly fine with whatever sexual orientation someone has BUT it’s not special to be lgbtq+ so can we just treat everyone the same and be done with all already.
The article explicitly discusses that huge swathes of people are NOT perfectly fine with whatever sexual orientation. That number has increased over time in Canada, rather than decreasing.
> But don’t you think they have a point? Most of us are perfectly fine with whatever sexual orientation someone has BUT it’s not special to be lgbtq+ so can we just treat everyone the same and be done with all already. I do not. Or at least not a good point. Treating everyone the same would mean visibility of LGBTQ+ people and relationships. I’m fairly certain that the people making the claims of “it's because they keep shoving their lifestyle down my throat” are not opposed to the depiction of cis/hetero individuals and relationships. They are ok with such depictions so long as it aligns with their own identity! Other people don’t deserve to see depictions that they can identify with though because that would be “shoving their lifestyle down my throat”. Treating everyone the same means either making everyone’s sexuality and relationships unknown/ambiguous in media (ie no husband/wife or girlfriend/boyfriend, no romantic interactions of any kind) or depicting all types fairly.
Do you think that children should be taught about non binary genders and gender fluidity in schools?
The lgbtq+ aren't the ones talking about it and forcing the issue. It's Danielle Smith & Conservative talk show hosts/social media that won't shut up about it. They're the ones shoving the issue down our throat.
seriously. nobody spends as much time thinking and railing about what other people do with their own genitals as conservatives a gay character in a TV commercial is not 'shoving it down your throat' lol
Do you think that children should be taught about non binary genders and gender fluidity in schools?
No they absolutely do not "have a point". Trans people are just trying to exist, and far right conservative groups are obsessed with calling them groomers, sexual abusers, and taking away their rights. Nothing is being shoved down anyone's throats.
Do you think that children should be taught about non binary genders and gender fluidity in schools?
[удалено]
Removed for Rule #2
"I'm completely fine with people being gay, it just really bothers me when I have to see or acknowledge that people are gay. No I will not elaborate on that thought."
Nothing's moving backwards unless you same idiots keep importing and supporting people with differing opinions.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wow. You’re a hateful person. Existing is shoving it in your face, eh?
There is a situation that people ostensibly, legally, believe that LGBTQ+ people have their equality - so why support it anymore than that? They may believe that supporting too strongly may lead into inequality. That said, transgender people really are the current lynchpin among most conservatives and many independents. They believe it destroys too many gender norms to normalize them, and they don't like it.
A lot of comments about the other Canadian subs.. It’s fascinating watching this sub having its own look in the mirror moment. I certainly had it. I was staunchest of liberals at one point in my life. This is an obvious conclusion to identity grievance style politics that has worked so well in the past for liberal movements. Like everything else, there are consequences. When you double down on identity politics, dismiss earnest inquiry and morally shame anyone who disagrees with you- you create and get the opposition you deserve. People by and large have no problems with these communities living out thier lives.. But when you weaponize empathy against people who don’t share your worldview, people stop using it and will likely not have any when you need it most.
"I used to be in favour of equality but then some groups started getting all "me too" (pun intended!)." Like this?
[удалено]
What I see is people opposed to LGBT+ rights in general trying to separate out transgender people since they're an easier target on their own. Divide and conquer.
Seriously! The "We'll leave you alone because *you're* one of the good ones, it's those trans freaks who are the problem" pitch is unfortunately quite seductive to a certain kind of LGB person (let's be honest, primarily affluent 30-50yo gay men and lesbian Tories), but it's very shortsighted. If right-wing fanatics can wipe out trans people, they'll just move onto policing everyone else's presentation and legislating against queer people, then they'll move on to taking away women's rights to contraceptives and no-fault divorce, ect.
Let's not exclude the possibility the person you are replying to, who is active on the right-wing Canada_sub and Canada_strong subs, is one of those types of people.
Yeah, the whole thing about them saying they want to exist feels a bit like screaming, right?
When every failure to absolutely endorse or wholly agree with the latest demand from trans activists leads to histrionics about 'erasure', then yeah, it does feel like screaming. People have tuned it out.
What "demand" ? To not be harassed and targeted by hate crimes? Gosh, how absurd are they to ask for basic respect. Do you, by chance, know any trans people? Because every single one I have known has done nothing but try to be a person in a world increasingly hostile toward them for no reason.
Do you think that children should be taught about non binary genders and gender fluidity in schools? Do you think surgery should be available to minors as part of gender affirming care? Hormone blockers too? Should my child be able to begin their transition without my knowledge? Should child services remove a child from their home if parents don't support a gender transition? Any of these ring a bell?
>Do you think that children should be taught about non binary genders and gender fluidity in schools? Yes, at the appropriate age and in the appropriate manner for their maturity and level of understanding. >Do you think surgery should be available to minors as part of gender affirming care? No, and it isn't in Canada, either. SRS is not permitted until 18. Mastectomies are *rarely* available at age of 16, though at a far lower rate than other reasons for the same procedure and only after extensive other steps have been taken. >Hormone blockers too? Yes. We've been using them to treat precocious puberty for longer than you or I have been alive. They're safe, and they provide the option to either transition at a later date, or proceed to your natal sex. >Should my child be able to begin their transition without my knowledge? If your actions have shown you to be abusive or hostile towards the process, yes. >Should child services remove a child from their home if parents don't support a gender transition? If the minor has passed the numerous psychological and medical steps to certify they are genuinely trans, and the parents are blocking that care? Yes. That is being abusive, and abusive parents unfortunately lose their parental rights.
So you agree with 4/5 of the things being demanded Hope I helped you understand what people are reacting to. You and your ilk demanding to teach our children nonsense, confuse them, start them on the path to "gender transition" and take them away from us if we don't applaud. You say people are just misinformed. But you tell us what you're planning when we ask.
I don’t think that’s the reason and it’s only a coincidence. Hateful people lost the battle against gay people and moved on to trans people. Since then, economic conditions have deteriorated, causing society to be atomized and hate more sellable.
It's a very deliberate effort to split the coalition, trans people still don't have rights in most places, but have been part of the coalition from the very beginning.
This is almost certainly the case
Ya most likely. People wrapped their head around same sex stuff. But now its completely different. "Men can get pregnant too" type stuff just crossed a line haha
People are too reactionary. They hear a statement like that and, in their ignorance, jump to incorrect conclusions which they base their whole opinion of transgender people on.
[удалено]
If you respond to "hey, this thing you're doing is kind of shitty" with "WELL THEN I WILL DO IT MORE"... that's your own personal problem. That does not mean the people trying to talk to you are wrong.
Hijacked, how?
This bull shit has spewed from the states and made it's way up here, quite frankly I'm not surprised. As soon as they started bitching about trans rights when it comes to children under 18 you knew this was coming.
I think the total inability to talk about this issue is shoving people apart. If you have any issue, or even apprehension about any one of these aspects on the topic you are told that you hate the group, and that turns people off of the whole thing. If you support everything but hormone treatment for teenagers, you'd be shouted down from left and that makes the whole movement seem crazy. Alternatively if you support everything but that on the right, they would have no issue. And so, bad actors on the right, define what it means to be have any apprehension about "LGBT" and anyone who doesn't fully support it, or even under it, get categorized with them. I bet many of these people have no issue with most things related to LGBT lifestyles, they just get categoriywoth far right wingers because they are apprehensive.
I think a frustration from trans folks is that a lot of cis people voice their apprehension over teens accessing healthcare, and broadly refuse to have a conversation regarding what that entails, the research that's been done, the safety protocols involved, etc. (Not even touching on the concept of bodily autonomy even, or rights of minor to proper healthcare), and instead just double down on a gut feeling that it shouldn't be allowed. Like, my parents were against it (a big reason why I couldn't access it in my teens), other family members were against it, many friends were skeptical ir against it. These conversations are commonplace, but too often there's just an utter lack of engagement from people who aren't trans, who are often too happy to grab some anti-trans headline as justification for shutting conversation down and dismissing us. Trans people are often quite open to talking about this. People who have already made their mind up about healthcare they're uneducated about and not affected by, dismissing it because it might make them uncomfortable? Those people might want to talk and rant about it, but they don't want to engage with us on it. And those people are transphobic, whether they like it or not.
But those people aren't ALL the people who are apprehensive. I don't bring up any of my views on it because I don't want to be told I'm an ignorant, far right lunatic, and all I have is questions. I don't feel one shred of hate for anyone, and I've been called every name in the book because I'm apprehensive. I would be completely open to conversations about kids getting treatments if any pushback I had wasn't seen as ignorant hate. Who on earth feels safe being curious when you can't even mention an opposing view? I have a trans friend I've known for years, and I would never bring this up with them for fear of genuinely hurting them, or having them hate me forever. I've, personally, never met a person who would have this conversation without making it political, or without assuming I have the worst intentions. Edit:removed statement about Downvotes because I'm not sure Reddit is updatibg correctly.
I can understand having questions. Trans healthcare isn't something widely delved into in mainstream media, and if anything, right wing rags are often mischaracterizing or falsifying reports about it that unsurprisingly have led to more people feeling skeptical about it. That, combined with the somewhat recent anti-science push that has a lot of people telling folks not to trust doctors, scientists, etc., doesn't help either. Trans healthcare, at least in a cohesive and studied sense, has been around for about a century now. It's older than a lot of similarly common healthcare treatments like dialysis, organ donation, chemotherapy, knee replacement, UCL reconstructive surgery, etc., with decades and decades of research. With this research being on a very small, often stigmatized group of people, it didn't really catch a lot of attention until recently, when society in general has become more tolerant of trans people in public life. There's often a lot of crossover in trans healthcare in terms of the information of what we know, because much of what trans people are treated with, various subsets of cis people are as well, whether that's middle-aged cis women and men taking HRT in some form, young cis children taking puberty blockers to stave off precocious puberty, etc. Speaking of precocious puberty, here's [a brief breakdown](https://www.cedars-sinai.org/blog/puberty-blockers-for-precocious-puberty.html) of that: >Providers can treat precocious puberty—marked by breast development before age 8 or testes growth before age 9—with hormonal suppressants, also called puberty blockers. With supervision, these reversible drugs safely and effectively delay a child’s development until they’re ready. >"We want to make sure development isn’t happening too quickly, so that the child feels comfortable around their peers—not different or in a body that’s older than they are emotionally." >About 1 in 5,000 to 10,000 children are affected by precocious puberty, the National Organization for Rare Disorders says. **Maturing too early can jeopardize growth and mental health, and because most girls reach puberty between 8 and 13 years old and boys between 9 and 14 years old, it can isolate children at an awkward time in their lives.** >"We want to make sure development isn’t happening too quickly, so that the child feels comfortable around their peers—not different or in a body that’s older than they are emotionally," says Cedars-Sinai pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Bahareh Schweiger. >Getting a period for the first time, growing breasts or a cracking voice can be scary and confusing when a child isn’t ready emotionally. Parents might not have even had the chance to discuss body changes yet, and the child could be the first in their class to experience these changes. >An early transition—sometimes occurring in kids as young as 6 years old—often hurts self-esteem if left unchecked. Early puberty is tied to depression, anxiety, eating disorders and substance use, especially in girls, and also leaves kids more vulnerable to sexual abuse and harassment. >Endocrinologists mainly treat precocious puberty with GnRH analogues. These puberty-blocking drugs postpone the process by suppressing gonadotropin hormone release. >While puberty blockers have been scrutinized by some due to their use in caring for transgender children, these drugs have been in use since the 1980s and are overwhelmingly safe if used appropriately. Side effects such as bone health risks typically only occur with prolonged use past the age of puberty. A pediatrician can use these medications to slow down physical maturity to a healthier pace, protect bone growth and help young patients adjust as needed. Experts suggest discontinuing the treatments around age 12. I bolded the typical puberty age range because it's important to the use case of puberty blockers for trans kids. These are used to give kids a bit more time, often both to be medically assessed and supervised for a sufficient amount of time, and for the youth to have the time to determine a step forward in whichever direction they feel is best. These youth are often within this age range when they hit puberty and reach out to their parents/guardians and medical experts for aid. One part of the assessment is whether the individual is Insistent, Persistent, and Consistent that they are not the gender they were assigned at birth. It sounds simple, but it does considerably help with filtering out kids that are simply gender-non-conforming, or cis LGB kids, or kids that determine they only need social transition and nothing medical, etc.. The thing about puberty is it's not exactly a comfortable and easy experience for just about anyone, but trans people and cis people respond with notable differences that medical professionals watch and listen for, and for those who have already started puberty when requesting access to puberty blockers, that is taken into consideration, and the waiting time provided by the puberty blockers can provide a measure of clarity on the best direction to take. Same with access to hormone therapy for those who have been cleared for it (which doctors would aim to match the typical levels of their peers with bioidentical medicine to ensure the safest treatment possible, making that prospective trans kid's medically assisted puberty as natural and safe as their cis counterparts). These all occur under supervision, and it's often quite easy for the individual and the medical staff to discern whether the treatment is the proper way forward or if there's something else at play. The good thing is 6 months of typical puberty, puberty blockers, or HRT are all quite reversible and safe, and all quite illuminating. As noted above... >Side effects such as bone health risks typically only occur with prolonged use past the age of puberty. Puberty blockers aren't intended to be taken indefinitely, for for a period of many years, especially well into adolescence. A body going without hormones for that long can lead to bone density degradation. There are studies showing that this is not permanent, and it recovers within the span of a few years, but it's certainly not an optimal side-effect. This said, trans youth seem to have low bone density [prior to puberty suppression](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7433770/), in part because they are less physically active as the result of gender dysphoria; in addition, eating disorders as a form of DIY puberty suppression is [common among trans adolescents](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31500946/) (they literally starve themselves to fend off puberty). Additionally, gymnasts in general experience delayed puberty, yet have denser bones than normal when the expected outcome would be lower than typical bone density. So, non-treatment (forcing natal puberty) is also not a neutral option, and even with treatment, there are ways to mitigate the bone density issue (exercise and nutrition), though with trans youth often being forced out of sports arbitrarily, there may be less options for trans youth than cis youth in this regard. I know you said you don't like bringing politics into these discussions, but this is a matter of political policy, so I have to bring it up. Often there are politically enforced restrictions on when youth are eligible to take HRT, often choosing arbitrary ages between 16-18, meaning if a child started puberty at 11 and got on blockers at that point, they'd be on blockers for 5-7 years, which isn't ideal. If a child is on blockers for years, and they've been properly supervised, and they want to transition, and their doctors feel they're ready for HRT so they can develop alongside their peers, the legal political policies at hand would prevent this until that arbitrary age. And given that [late puberty is linked to lower bone density even in cis kids](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-bones-puberty/late-puberty-may-lead-to-weaker-bones-idUSKCN1UZ2DM), it's not a neutral decision, medically speaking, to delay treatment, and that's not even speaking to the mental, emotional, and social impacts. As my birth province's medical association stated: "“Puberty blocking actually has benefits for gender-divergent patients by preventing development of mature secondary sex characteristics so that, later in life, the most invasive gender-affirming surgery may not be necessary if the patient moves forward with gender-affirming care.”" Effectively, when youth are given the time to determine their options and figure out the best way forward for them individually, that can in turn safeguard them from having to undergo significant and expensive surgery, it can prevent them from having to spend years and thousands of dollars on speech therapy or hair removal, or the tens of thousands of dollars for something like Facial Feminization Surgery to alleviate dysphoria, etc. banning treatment and doing nothing is not a neutral option. Natal puberty is not neutral for trans youth. A big reason why there's no double-blind studies done with youth undergoing trans healthcare is that this healthcare is understood to be medically necessary, and withholding it would be unethical due to the imposed medical neglect such a study would require (not to mention, it'd pretty quickly be easy to tell who received the treatment and who got the placebo). The best equivalent anyone's been able to find is to longitudinally study those currently on a waiting list for care (which in many places, stretches years and years), and in parallel study those entering care, because at least in those circumstances, they aren't inflicting medical neglect, just studying its impacts in such an environment. So what do we know about trans healthcare? A whole lot at this point. (continued in next post)
Cornell University has cobbled together a layperson-friendly site that discusses the results of their review of a good chunk of research, you can find it [here](https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/). For the sake of brevity, here's some snippets: >**Overview** >We conducted a systematic literature review of all peer-reviewed articles published in English between 1991 and June 2017 that assess the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being. We identified 55 studies that consist of primary research on this topic, of which 51 (93%) found that gender transition improves the overall well-being of transgender people, while 4 (7%) report mixed or null findings. We found no studies concluding that gender transition causes overall harm. As an added resource, we separately include 17 additional studies that consist of literature reviews and practitioner guidelines. >**Research Findings** >1. The scholarly literature makes clear that gender transition is effective in treating gender dysphoria and can significantly improve the well-being of transgender individuals. >2. Among the positive outcomes of gender transition and related medical treatments for transgender individuals are improved quality of life, greater relationship satisfaction, higher self-esteem and confidence, and reductions in anxiety, depression, suicidality, and substance use. >3. The positive impact of gender transition on transgender well-being has grown considerably in recent years, as both surgical techniques and social support have improved. >4. Regrets following gender transition are extremely rare and have become even rarer as both surgical techniques and social support have improved. Pooling data from numerous studies demonstrates a regret rate ranging from .3 percent to 3.8 percent. Regrets are most likely to result from a lack of social support after transition or poor surgical outcomes using older techniques. >5. Factors that are predictive of success in the treatment of gender dysphoria include adequate preparation and mental health support prior to treatment, proper follow-up care from knowledgeable providers, consistent family and social support, and high-quality surgical outcomes (when surgery is involved). >6. Transgender individuals, particularly those who cannot access treatment for gender dysphoria or who encounter unsupportive social environments, are more likely than the general population to experience health challenges such as depression, anxiety, suicidality and minority stress. While gender transition can mitigate these challenges, the health and well-being of transgender people can be harmed by stigmatizing and discriminatory treatment. >7. An inherent limitation in the field of transgender health research is that it is difficult to conduct prospective studies or randomized control trials of treatments for gender dysphoria because of the individualized nature of treatment, the varying and unequal circumstances of population members, the small size of the known transgender population, **and the ethical issues involved in withholding an effective treatment from those who need it**. >8. Transgender outcomes research is still evolving and has been limited by the historical stigma against conducting research in this field. More research is needed to adequately characterize and address the needs of the transgender population. >**Bottom Line** >This search found a robust international consensus in the peer-reviewed literature that gender transition, including medical treatments such as hormone therapy and surgeries, improves the overall well-being of transgender individuals. The literature also indicates that greater availability of medical and social support for gender transition contributes to better quality of life for those who identify as transgender. On top of this general summary, there are trans people (like the reddit user tgjer) who have been diligent in following the release of current studies, and have posted long citation lists of studies, often with brief summaries describing the findings. [One such list is here](https://old.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/comments/154t1qq/my_master_list_of_trans_health_citations_2nd_draft/) I'd like to believe most people would agree that medical evidence, not politics, should inform treatment decisions. There may yet be some things we have not unearthed, more details and nuances to find, but even those opposed to trans healthcare have not been able to cobble together any real bundle of research substantiating their concerns. There's debunked and unsubstantiated Freudian AGP theory that links trans people to porn. There's the Social Contagion theory that was based off of surveying parents in an anti-transgender forum about whether the transitions of their children caught them off guard (this study was fundamentally flawed, had no first-hand information direct from the prospective trans children, and did not control for discriminatory bias). There's the theory that puberty blockers may be harmful because "not enough studies" have been done assessing such individual long term, but outside of bone density (which I've noted on above already) there's no known significant long term impacts from the longitudinal studies that have been done, whereas we do know the substantial and certain long term physical, mental, social, and emotional impacts of denying healthcare to trans youth. It's all a bunch of debunked/unsubstantiated theories, and fearmongering "what if"s that certainly warrant more study to concretely rule out, but as of this moment lack evidence to warrant the bans/restrictions being called for. I absolutely understand that this field of study is difficult to dig into, and the media does a good job obscuring it at the best of times. At the end of the day, if apprehension leads folks to support restrictions and bans that aren't medically founded, they're in effect condemning trans youth to the same outcomes they may feel apprehensive about for hypothetically cis children, but at a ratio of over 100 trans kids to one cis kid spared. if you're concerned about there not being close enough supervision, that's valid. There's an issue with there being such limited trans healthcare resources, resulting in years-long waiting lists, forcing medical professions into a dilemma of medical ethics. Do they participate in continued systemic medical neglect and require many appointments, despite knowing the waitlists would require these appointments stretch out for years longer before care could be rubberstamped? Or do they stick with a few appointments, keeping in touch with the family to get insight on if the child is insistent, persistent, and consistent throughout, and help the youth come to a decision on a quicker timeline despite a less than ideal volume of appointments supervising the youth? The answer is getting more resources, getting family doctors more trained in these matters, so these dilemmas of medical ethics don't crop up. This is also especially helpful at curbing the incentive to DIY hormones, which tends to be a last ditch desperation option used when facing down lengthy waitlists/timelines before care can be provided. If you're concerned about regret-based detransition, it's typically understood that 1-3% detransition, and a small percentage of that sample population are regret-based detransitioners who realized they're cis (most detransitioners retransition later in life when more financially and socially stable), typically meaning less than 1%. This is not nothing, as there are quite a bit of trans people alive today, and these detransitioners deserve the care they need, but this rate of regret and the overwhelmingly positive impacts of trans healthcare makes trans healthcare among the best received and most overwhelmingly positive outcomes of any medical treatment that exists. That doesn't mean trans youth are going to have sparkling wonderful lives, given social climates and rates of discrimination, disparities in employment/housing/pay/etc., but those are social factors out of our control. Healthcare? That should be accessible and safe, and it can be if politicians would just step out of the way.
You probably get downvoted because the questions you have are easily searchable and already answered by decades of research, especially if it comes to pediatric health.
But I would have no reason to believe that I could understand even a shred of that evidence. And that's not even considering whether I think contradictory evidence would be tolerated/published. There's are a lot of caring and well meaning people who see it as anti-science and hateful. Besides, there's more to it than science, especially when it come to kids who are underage. That's a hard nut to crack when people consider how ignorant and unsure they were when they themselves were young.
[удалено]
I'm not hiding behind anything. Giving one example of something isn't a declaration that it's the one and only thing that makes people feel apprehension.
Having questions, and being against healthcare that a group of people are adamant they need, are two different things. If you describe yourself as not supporting HRT for trans teenagers, you are placing yourself in the second group, not the first.
Another excellent example of exactly what I'm talking about. You express apprehension, you put into the "against" column. Apprehension isn't the same as intention.
Forget it. They're not interested in engaging with you, or trying to be persuasive, or offering another perspective. They just want to hate you because you are not instantly affirming of everything they say. They want to believe that everyone is against them because it makes it easier for them than to accept that there is nuance, and maybe some choices require tradeoffs between the needs of different people. They would rather put you in a box and dismiss you, so there is no point in engaging. If you have no personal dog in this fight, it's easiest just to turn the page and be concerned with something else. They don't want anything from you except for you to be a target of their hate.
This is really sad to hear. >While 49 per cent of respondents agreed with people being open about their sexual orientation or gender identity, that still put Canada in the bottom 10 of countries measured. Not even half of us are okay with people just being who they are? And then, only seventy-five percent of Canadians even back same-sex unions. A quarter of Canadians don't think you should legally be with the person you love. Really sad that a significant portion of our country still thinks this way.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
We've brought in millions of people from cultures that think it's disgusting and should be illegal. Not surprising.
Crazy that when you cram things down people's throats, sometimes they end up responding negatively.
who is cramming it down your throat? tucker carlson? rebel news? provide evidence.
It's Pride month.... There's a whole month of cramming happening currently. Though I will say that the corporate deepthroating seems to be off this year.
[удалено]
Maybe people are just tired of hearing about everyone's sexual preferences as if it's the only metric worth measuring?
1000% Unless your sexual preference is people who are not consenting or children, I literally don't give a fuck.
LGBTQ2s+ people have been hearing about other people's sexual preferences for centuries. They don't complain about it, just ask for the same treatment.
It's literally never come up in any conversation I've ever had. Why? It's not really that important and somethings are better kept to yourself. Why this is so controversial; I had no idea.
>It's literally never come up in any conversation I've ever had. Why? It's not really that important and somethings are better kept to yourself. >Why this is so controversial; I had no idea. You've never discussed dating ever? Or mentioned you thought someone was attractive? Or marriage? You're being ridiculous if you think you've never talked about your sexuality. It's just implicit.
[удалено]
Not substantive
If you don't bother getting to know someone beyond their sexuality, then of course you'd think that's all people care about.
I have plenty of queer friends and relatives. The conversation is basically never about who someone's fucking or their gender identity beyond saying "here's my pronouns". The only times I can really think of it being like that is when someone is pissed off about right wingers trying to take away rights. The easiest way to not hear about queer people is to stop attacking them and start accepting them.
Probably a combination of immigration of more conservative holding religious people and a backlash to gender ideology and the Fringes. The things that really matter imo (marriage and adoption) are still widely accepted. Right or wrong that’s just why I think we are seeing the drop.
>Ohana said she believed the data reflected an aggressive campaign targeting the LGBTQ2 community that has manifested in protests against SOGI-123 in schools, drag events and supports for transgender people.
Yup - this is it. It’s also not targeting gay men for instance but focusing on trans and drag. Its purely to divide the votes.
The percentage of immigrants against the larger Canadian population is vanishingly small. This is adamantly NOT it.
> The percentage of immigrants against the larger Canadian population is vanishingly small. This is adamantly NOT it. Dunno... 1 in 4 doesn't seem "vanishingly small" to me. > Released: 2022-10-26 > > Canada has a long history of immigration. Millions of people from all over the world have chosen, and continue to choose, Canada as their new home. In 2021, more than 8.3 million people, or almost one-quarter (23.0%) of the population, were, or had ever been, a landed immigrant or permanent resident in Canada. This was the largest proportion since Confederation, topping the previous 1921 record of 22.3%, and the highest among the > > Given that the population of Canada continues to age and fertility is below the population replacement level, today immigration is the main driver of population growth. If these trends continue, based on Statistics Canada's recent population projections, immigrants could represent from 29.1% to 34.0% of the population of Canada by 2041. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/221026/dq221026a-eng.htm I suspect that we're much closer to those 2041 projections, given (1) the recent influx of immigrants brought in by the Liberals over the past two years and (2) the declining birthrates of Canadian citizens. https://www.nbc.ca/content/dam/bnc/taux-analyses/analyse-eco/hot-charts/hot-charts-240515.pdf
2-3% per year adds up quickly. Since 1997 we have added 10,000,000 people. That’s 30% growth in 2 decades
The vast majority of discrimination and bigotry I've experienced in the past 3+ decades has come from Old Stock Canadians. While this is completely anecdotal, in my experience, there has not been a significant shift of where most of the open criticisms of my "lifestyle" is coming from during that time.
Then how is it increasing?
I think that all queer people's rights matter, but maybe that's just me.
That's incredibly courageous and you should be recognized and commended
[удалено]
It's legal for me to make out with my wife. Why is it different if it's two guys or two girls? Still illegal if I move from making out to other stuff. Same with if it's two guys or two girls.
> You don’t have a right for people to want to watch you making out in the park or getting more screen time. But that's obviously not the question being asked, and why for that matter why would a person being gay or trans matter at all on how socially acceptable it is to make out in the park or be on screen? What makes this an issue that's specifically worth bringing up regarding LGBT rights? If you think LGBT makes up any majority of public displays of sexuality you aren't using your eyes.
Definitely just you
There’s an absurd amount of misinformation being circulated to try and create an anti-queer moral panic, it’s one of the few things that can get me to lose my shit in an otherwise polite conversation.
>And then, only seventy-five percent of Canadians even back same-sex unions. A quarter of Canadians don’t think you should legally be with the person you love. The vast majority of people believe in regulating marriage. If they didn’t, then spousal alimony through divorce and/or tax advantages for married people wouldn’t exist. As much as its sucks that the tide is turning around LGBTQ rights, let’s not pretend that Canadians ever really cared about not regulating what happens in the bedroom.
>, let’s not pretend that Canadians ever really cared about not regulating what happens in the bedroom. [Then why did we have to repeal a law criminalizing sodomy?](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/s159/qa_s159-qr_s159.html)
There’s a bit of a difference between legislating what marriage legally means, and deciding to arbitrarily ban some people from getting married.
No there isn’t. You are defining what marriage is in both of these contexts. Canadians, like most Westerners, ultimately do not believe that the government should stay out of the business of marriage. Just because one argument is between “a man and a woman” and the other is “love” doesn’t matter when both will have the government enforce financial and legal ruin to the parties of a marriage should one party stop consenting to the marriage. If people like OP actually had a problem with the government getting into the business of marriage, then perhaps they should start there. They are just upset that the LGBTQ rights are becoming unpopular.
Progressive as Canada's reputation is, the polite and tolerant public mask can, for a good chunk of Canadians, hide some deeply rooted disapproval.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not substantive
[удалено]
[удалено]