- cross-posted to:
- onguardforthee@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- onguardforthee@lemmy.ca
You must log in or # to comment.
So this is exactly what I said in another post earlier. Canada is America in a time delay. Once this effects enough people relatable, it will level off. But a lot of trans people will be hurt in the mean time.
Public support for trans and gender-diverse people is declining, and that decline is being driven by political and media discourse.
Yes, agree. It’s a wedge issue because of how many complicated emotions it stirs up for certain groups. There is an ideological moral conflict attached to it, and certain powers understand that aggrevating this issue will help them move toward their goals. So it gets used as a distraction and is highly publicized.
The truth is, this is an issue that should not really be so significant of a problem as it is. We should not concern ourselves with how somoene else chooses to be and live in their life if it causes us no quantifiable harm. Some people believe the fear or disgust they feel is a harm and they might rationalize their beliefs about the work force or about kids safety in an effort to substantiate their feelings, but they are wrong.
I think about some of the narrative around the Tumbler Ridge shooter, Jessie Van Rootselaar, that vehemently blames transgenderism for the atrocity. But the real story is, there was a neglected and ostracized kid that came from a broken home and was surround by unhealthy role models and no supports. They also had access to guns and a blind eye was turned to many of the warning signs that predicated the tragedy. The trans thing is such a footnote in the overall picture yet it becomes a common headline for certain readers.
There are a few really loud people. Most of us don’t care
I really wish this three sentence article at least linked to the study…
One of the questions:
“1. People should be able to express their gender however they choose.”
Is pretty open ended. That can mean something different to many people.
Yes, that is precisely the point
If the question means different things to different people, it’s a bad survey question.
Not if the thing under discussion fundamentally means many different things to many different people, again that is the entire point.
According to whom?
If it means different things to different people, it’s impossible to make a valid conclusion.
Not only it’s very much possible, it’s the whole point of open ended questions. Where are you pulling those confident assessments from?
It requires a yes no answer. That’s not an open ended answer. That’s why it’s flawed.
The Alberta racists are being emboldened by Marlaina/Trump.
Now explain every other province.
E: It was rhetorical; this isn’t a province-by-province kind of problem, nor it it an Alberta issue.
Public education has been systemically underfunded and under attack for the last 40 years which is directly the fault of all 3 major parties both federally and provincially.
Jordan Peterson, Pat King, Tamara Lich, Timbit Trump etc etc etc.
20% of any population is not very smart and susceptible to emotional manipulation, schools don’t teach critical thinking very well, and 10% of a population is dark triad (‘evil’) or adjacent.
It should be pointed out that the last provincial election in BC came down to just a handful of voters in a couple of ridings. A few butterfly wingflaps and we could have had that mouth-breather Rustad as premier.
The rabid right feeds off of fear. Stop that shit when you see it.
Conservatives and American/Rowling propaganda
In BC it’s the same shit honestly. The official opposition party just chose an extremely racist and transphobic leader. It’s just people who are emboldened by the same shit happening down south and falling for disinformation/scapegoatism.
By blaming this all on Alberta you’re making the situation worse rather than better. For one, many Albertans who would otherwise be your allies are now offended. For two, it gives a pass to all the other hateful people throughout the rest of Canada.
For one, many Albertans who would otherwise be your allies are now offended.
Meh, I kind of agree that the parent comment is needlessly antagonistic but I doubt that this would be the thing that tips someone over, someone this easily swayed would have found other reason to not be an ally already.
So agree on “making the situation worse rather than better” because it degrades the discussion, but it’s not like being offended by this will meaningfully change someone’s view on the matter.
Not only is he not blaming everything on Alberta… The only albertans oblivious enough to be offended by what he’s saying are the bigots we’re talking about.
The classic “if you’re offended then you must deserve to be offended.” Kind of ironic in the context of an article about bigotry.
The article is discussing a Canada-wide problem and he jumped straight to “it’s about Alberta.” The article actually calls out Saskatchewan as having the steepest decline in acceptance of gender diversity.
Sorry are you just unaware of the separatist movement galvanizing maple maga across the country? Or do you just lack reading comprehension?
Stop misunderstanding people. Or stop putting words in their mouth. Pick one and do it.
I can literally look out my window right this moment and see the yard sign I’ve got up opposing separatism. I’ve canvassed for anti-separatist movements, I phone banked for the NDP in the most recent provincial election, I went door to door in support of them. I live in one of the ridings that sent an NDP member to parliament, I voted for them too.
But yeah, clearly I’m the bigot here. It annoys me that Alberta is considered a big blob of traitors and racists and therefore I must be a racist myself.
Do you not see how this kind of attitude is harmful?
You’re right. Sad that you’re getting downvotes.
IMO the upvote/downvote system is the Fediverse’s biggest mistake, and eliminating it its biggest missed opportunity. There simply isn’t enough of a userbase for it to be meaningful, most threads end up with just a few dozen comments so sorting them by vote ratio doesn’t really accomplish much. Meanwhile it helps drive communities into ever tighter social bubbles by giving such an easy mechanism to express “go away” vibes to anyone with a view that isn’t perfectly in line with the existing consensus.
I agree with that too.
I’ve seen upvote-only communities work elsewhere. I’d be happy to see the downvote button dropped.
Hexbear has downvotes disabled. There are probably other instances too.
I think part of the issue is there’s a lot of misinformation. Someone told me today that they heard about someone claiming their baby was transgender. I highly highly doubt that happened. Transgender advocates believe people should say for themselves what gender they identify with, no sane person would presume to speak for a baby. I could see someone maybe trying to avoid thinking of their baby as one gender or the other until they’re old enough to self-identify. But there are a lot of weird stories out there about transgender people acting like lunatics and, although most of them probably aren’t true, people believe these stories and use them as reasons to be transphobic. And there’s the persistent lie that transgender people are lopping penises off of six-year-olds and other things like that.
Ok, so can we put an end to labelling people as ‘eggs’ without their input?
Age is the only difference between the two. And yet, one seems to get a free pass in the community.
It’s the satanic panic all over again, once again being pushed by Christian extremists.
Well look how that ended for them D&D is huge, BG3 and fantasy adjacent media is beloved, paganism and the like are growing, and gender roles are melting.
the Internet is flourishing with femboys and fursonas
once the moral panic around trans people fade (hopefully I’ll be alive to see it), what will be left behind in peace will hopefully be a bunch of institutions that were able to thrive on that pride despite all the pushback
Don’t forget the heavy metal, which was also a target and now more popular than ever
But yeah fuck those assholes. Real patriots believe all their countryfolk have the right to live as they choose.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Personally I think treating babies as babies is the sane option, it’s bizarre to me we dress literal babies in extremely gender identifying ways… they’re a baby! Me choosing greens and yellows, purples and grays isn’t saying my baby is trans it’s saying my baby is a baby and if you want to know more about them you should talk to me about them… it’s really not complicated.
The hyper fixation on gender for babies and kids is bonkers
It’s a powerful tool for distraction though
“Do you support gender diversity?” “Well, our government says if I don’t, it’s potentially a hate crime/hate speech – sorta like calling out the genocide in Israel gets termed as such, or questioning the narrative around first nations – so, uh, yes, I support it, sure whatever, so long as there’s no financial commitment involved or followup questions. Let me get back to my life”.
As the commenter below demonstrated, there is a growing number of Canadians falling for misinformation.
Bill C-9 was about stopping hateful people from using religion to justify the crimes they had already committed. But the propogandists told them it classified the bible as hate speech.
Clearly they are misappropriating Pro-Palestine censorship in the UK to validate their entitlement to baselessly espouse residential denialism.
Most of my community is Christian/conservative and while I see more people espousing anti-trans views, it’s all chronically online people who I know personally stopped forming their own opinions in 2016.
The context behind poll numbers like this is that MAGA is scraping the bottom the barrel. Same total support, but more MAGAs signing up to answer surveys.
If it helps, I had previously tagged that poster as “Islamophobic cunt” so they’ve been on the wrong side of history.
But the propogandists told them it classified the bible as hate speech.
The optimists you mean.
And you can really feel it.
This probably won’t be popular but it is true nonetheless.
What has happened is that people, on the both the right and the left, bring up legitimate concerns with regards to gender diversity issues. They’re concerned that we might be going overboard with preferential hiring, they have concerns about men and women’s showers and the like, and while there are often answers and discussions to be had around these issues even if you don’t agree with them they are legitimate
But instead of treating them like legitimate issues and engaging with people that have these concerns unfortunately the transgender advocate community and many on the left have lashed out and basically called anybody who has questions about any of this transphobic scum who need to be locked up and should be disposed of and silence and any other nasty names they can think of.
This tends to polarize these positions and people start feeling attacked and they tend to move into the anti-transgender camp. A child is banned from a school just for saying he believes there’s two genders 100 parents out there start thinking the things have gone too far and if they see a chance they’ll oppose this
Then you wind up with two sides. And there’s never any discussion between two sides, it’s just us versus them and them versus us.
And once that takes hold it’s really hard to beat. Unfortunately transgender rights issues got handled very poorly in the last six or seven years and now there’s growing opposition that’s not being driven by rational concerns but rather tribalism
It’s true that that is your opinion. It reflects on you and your subjective experiences, perceptions, and interpretations; not on reality. Introducing an opinion as “it’s true” can come across pretty closed-minded.
It’s my opinion that the sun is going to rise in the east tomorrow. You can argue that it’s not a fact, but I wouldn’t be betting any money against it 😉 Does that make me arrogant?
Truth is rarely absolute. If you think that it’s not true or if you think that additional contacts or information is necessary then by all means present your case.
It’s true.
Have you had actual experience of this or is it something you read about?
Of course I’ve had personal experience of it, but to base my statement on one person’s soul experience would probably not be very valuable. However on a larger scale we can certainly see it in action as well. And you can follow the progression as people become less and less tolerant in the light of more and more radical demands.
One person’s experience is always interesting but the broader picture certainly is what is important
🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩
There arent “two sides” to accepting the existence of a group of people
There is acceptance and there isnt. You dont get to say people who dont believe that trans people exist have some kind of valid argument.
You wouldnt say this shit about the civil rights movement
This is a human rights issue. Trans rights are human rights. If you dont think that you shouldn’t be participating in a discussion about trans inclusion.
There’s always two sides. Nothing is ever black and white. Acceptance does not mean Every element of the demand must be addressed unquestioningly. Nor does questioning elements of their demands represent a lack of acceptance to their existence.
I absolutely would say the shit about the civil rights movement. In fact I do. For example people demanding reparations for black americans to make up for slavery that happened generations ago is not something I believe in. That doesn’t mean I am claiming slaves didn’t exist or that black people don’t have issues today or that there shouldn’t be actions that address those issues.
Waving around the term human rights issue doesn’t change anything. It is common for human rights to conflict. When one person’s rights butt up against somebody else’s rights Then generally speaking a conversation is had to look at solutions that minimize the impact of both people. It is absolutely not the case and it is extremely repressive to simply pretend that one group’s rights don’t exist in order to favor another group’s rights and that’s just simple logic.
So pretending that nobody else has a valid opinion and should shut up is the kind of thing that has led to this blowback where people are saying “If it’s a question of one set of rights or the other and there’s no compromise then I would rather it be my rights that exist and not theirs”. That is not a good way to proceed.
This is a minefield of a comment that is way above my pay grade…
You dont have a “right” to deny a group of people public existence. You never did. That isnt how any of that works.
You’re replacing to be “I can’t think of a logical counter argument therefore I’m going to create an argument he didn’t make and fight against that”.
Can you point to anywhere that I said people have a right to deny a group of people public existence"? No? I never said that? Well how interesting 😂
And I wonder if you would extend that same line of thinking to Nazis or cultures that believed in slavery.
What I said was that it is common for people’s rights to conflict. This is the so-called can’t shout fire in a theater concept, although that specific example is a bad one and has been disproven.
In other words Someone’s right to free speech does not eradicate someone else’s right to safety. So when that happens we have to look at solutions that create the least amount of offense to people’s rights.
You seem to be struggling with this concept. You seem to be claiming that One group’s rights are absolute and any other rights must be ignored or else people have been denied the right to exist or something.
Sorry buddy but you’re the one who’s spouting nonsense that doesn’t exist in the real world.
When you say “someones rights to conflict” you’re saying someone has a right to not support gender diversity in this context
Im not engaging with that and you dont have a “right” to not like gender diversity
There is no “both sides” to accepting LGBTQ+ people
No, I’m not saying anything remotely close to that and you’re completely making that up because you can’t address the point. Pointing out the two sets of rights conflict doesn’t mean that one side does or doesn’t support the other
And yes you absolutely have a right not to like gender diversity. That is absolutely every person’s right. You have the absolute god-given right not to like anything, you don’t have to like puppies if you don’t want to. Who told you you didn’t have the right to decide what you do and don’t like?
But we’re not discussing what people like. We’re discussing people’s rights. And rights are not absolute. And if someone’s gender rights conflict with someone else’s rights to something then there’s going to have to be a solution that minimizes the impact of BOTH parties rights and that’s jus the way it is.
And stop making up fake arguments just cuz you can’t deal with the actual argument
What “two sets of rights” are you addressing then? What “both sides” is there to gender acceptance?
Rhetorical question by the way. There are no valid “sides” to bigotry.
The only fake argument here is pretending that GSRM people existing and being accepted has valid opposition and acting like this is some “left vs right” issue and not a bare minimum human rights argument that has no valid opposition that isnt rooted at its core in ignorance and/or bigotry
Some arguments dont get to be a BoTh SiDeS game
I would genuinely ask you what actual valid argument you believe exists in opposition to GSRM acceptance but I dont believe in platforming fallacious or bigoted opinions as somehow equivalent to fact and the FACTS are: LGBTQ+/GSRM people exist, have always existed, did not choose to be who they are, and have a right to exist same as anyone else regardless of prejudice
And your comment is trying to “both sides” gender acceptance that is what this entire post is about
🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩
You are criticizing their language, not their argument.
No, im criticizing their argument. You dont get to say trans acceptance is a “both sides” issue full stop.
No, your criticizing their language AND straw manning them. You don’t get to put words in other people’s mouths full stop.
Extremists always demand things go their way or they threaten harm of one kind or another. The left has tyrannical extremists who do not compromise or converse and the left adamantly refuses to acknowledge they exist nevermind disavow them, possibly partly due to that harm being threatened upon them if they do. The right extremists are called out and vilified constantly and right refuses to disavow them too.
Power is power, however it is formed, if it is used to compel compliance, it is tyranny. Extremists being accepted in both sides are pulling in opposite directions and tearing the center. The center needs to form a cohesive leadership and pull support from both sides to starve these extremists of the audience they need to exist. Disavow them and kick them out. If the left can’t even admit their extremists exist, the right has no reason to disavow their crazies.
It is a problem with the left and arguably society in general that we are slower to acknowledge the dangers and horrors of left wing extremism then we are with right wing. Some estimates put Stallings killings at around 20 million. Left Wing radicalism has killed more people the right-wing radicalism
I don’t even know if it’s about forming a center, I think we should try and be promoting the idea that there is no difference between right-wing or left-wing radicalism and that all radicalism should be regarded in the same light.
That belief sits squarely in the center, the furthest point from both extremes, it is the center.
That’s arguably true from one point of view and I can see why you’re saying that. I guess what I’m saying is I feel like it should be more ubiquitous to both right and left thinking. For example both right and the left generally speaking can agree that murder is bad even if we don’t agree on what we should do with murderers. Some things are outside of the realm of left and right.
I think is a society we should come to an agreement that certain extremism whether it’s left or right is horrible and wrong. And there was a time when that was a generally accepted belief. “I disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it”. etc etc.
When I was a younger person there was a great deal more belief in the idea that repressing speech or repressing people or groups or any sort of authoritarian Behavior be it on the right or the left was unacceptable and would like to see that pervasively agreed on by both sides of the spectrum again.
The Hallmark of a free and successful society is its ability to be tolerant of multiple and often conflicting ideology and still find a way to work together on those things we agree on.
Both sides justify murder. Both have accepted groups that believe murder is a viable solution. Who they target and why is what differs.
If what you say is a hallmark of a free and successful society, and we don’t have it, we no longer live in a free and successful society. And in that space, when we lose the unification necessary to be one, single thing, multiple separate things with opposing belief systems will compete for control. And that is that not what is happening? To such an extent that the constitution of America and the division of power is considered an acceptable sacrifice?
Nobody has to be tolerant of intolerance
That’s the core principle of the paradox of tolerance
You are arguing that we should be tolerant of intolerance
Then considering your being intolerant i don’t have to respect or care about you right? And if gender advocates are intolerant of anyone then it’s fine for me to be intolerant of gender diversity right?
Sigh.
Every body has to be tolerant of everybody kiddo. That’s the only way it works. You don’t have to LIKE the person or their thoughts but you do have to be tolerant.
What we DON’T tolerate is violations of people’s rights. It’s okay for you to decide that you think that white CIS people are scum. But if you go around treating them like scum and violating the rights then there’s a problem.
If there is no tolerance for intolerance then there is no tolerance. Eventually everything becomes intolerance
Sorry to break it to you
Show your cards more wow
I knew youd do it eventually
We have to. Everybody fucked off from all the major platforms and this issue went from something that was defendable to not
TBF the owners of said major platforms are siding with the bigots and selectively enforcing their own TOS with extreme prejudice.
They side with them only because thats who is in charge now. They still answer to money. The algorithms are not just “feed people racist content” it is still controlled by engagent and eyeballs. Yet the left convinced each other to removed ourselves from that equation and then are stunned the algorithms now favor right wing content.
I don’t fucking understand how people on the left say “they have billions” and then don’t realize that the billions are going to convince the left to leave platforms so they don’t need to spend as much to spread their ideas.
Because said platforms are increasingly hateful and harmful
So you say fuck it and abandon everybody else? So you give the hate and harm a better chance to grow and propagated and lie and cheat without resistance?
I’m fine if you’re not a leftist and you don’t care about MAGA or politics and you just use the internet to look at memes about beans and moths. But if you care about the country, the current state of things, if you hate authoritarians and racists and that women cannot get abortions and you left these platforms then I struggle to form the words to describe how much i despise you. Because MAGA are what they are. Filled with hate and want to watch the world burn. But I expect more from people on the left and to see anyone say this means you know how important it is to stop them and you choose to fuck off.
It’s like hearing someone who complains about the state of things only to find out they don’t vote.
Honestly? Yes. Trying to fight the growing societal hate is futile and self destructive.
Help who you can. Be kind to the people in your life. Understand that most comments on the Internet are bots and trolls who want you to be upset.
It is absolutely not futile. It is the one area that you can truly make an improvement in things. You have only decided that its futile because you cannot be bothered which goes to my point and my anger with people like you. I think the left are being way to easy on people like you. You’re part of the problem.
I mean your logic is just so insane to me. Bots cost money. Why the fuck would anyone be spending money on bots. It’s because there’s a reason for it. What they need is for you to run away so their bot costs are lower if that’s what you believe. You give them 2 options, realize using bots doesn’t work against an aggressive left or you drive their costs up with each comment
You have only decided that its futile because you cannot be bothered
No. That’s not why. More like after 40 years of trying I’ve lost hope. Why would I fight another 40 years? I’ve given up enough life to this.
Nah, I’m going to rest and accept the world as it is.
I’m still personally on socials unfortunately because it’s the only way to get any reach as an artist, but I’m merely explaining why so many vulnerable people hop off of it. That said, your comment is straight up victim blaming.
The other half of the equation is that the platforms are actively deplatforming leftists. You can’t even bring up genocide without risking a shadowban or just straight up losing your account.
Hell, a personal example, I got permabanned from Reddit a few years ago for saying that riot police should quit their jobs in shame following Roe v Wade. I still stand by that statement fwiw
If you have socials for art, then you probably understand how it’s basically marketing/advertising and you’re probably paying aware of the double standards of moderation and troll bots.
Godspeed to you.
Idk, I see these kinds of headlines and I can’t help but think about how skewed/messed up government studies/statscan data seems to be. Like there was a study released this year about how women working as TFW’s in the interior/north of BC are mistreated. CBC, I think, went up to talk to people in the region, and they were all like “Women? Everyone, what’s this women only thing? We’re all facing potentially precarious work conditions / abuse from our bosses”. So the data, as presented by our ideologically motivated/biased government, does not reflect the reality on the ground.
I’d argue that acceptance of the rather far-left gender-diversity crowds multitude of genders was always generally low, and largely based on opinions of convenience for people asked. “Do you support gender diversity?” “Well, our government says if I don’t, it’s potentially a hate crime/hate speech – sorta like calling out the genocide in Israel gets termed as such, or questioning the narrative around first nations – so, uh, yes, I support it, sure whatever, so long as there’s no financial commitment involved or followup questions. Let me get back to my life”.
Most older folks are likely ‘fine’ with male/female, gay/lesbian/bi. The two survey questions the article highlights, are specifically if you’d support a family member who came out as trans, and whether people should be free to express their gender however they want. Back in the earlier survey, they didn’t ask the same trans question, so the inferred decrease in support there is totally misleading. As for people expressing themselves, back before the gender folks got pushing and it was mainly viewed as ‘just’ male/female gay/lesbian/bi, you hadn’t had cases like that shop teacher in Ontario dressing up as a garish trans-woman (I believe it was, months and months later, out’d as a fraud he was committing for some benefits etc). You also didn’t have as aggressive a push to educate young children about the fringe cases of sexuality / expose them to that stuff with clearly political/ideological intentions, I mean, no real surprise in my book that people are less inclined to say “Yeah, sure, express away!” and are leaning more towards there being limits when it comes to social spaces.
Idk, I see these kinds of headlines and I can’t help but think about how skewed/messed up government studies/statscan data seems to be. Like there was a study released this year about how women working as TFW’s in the interior/north of BC are mistreated. CBC, I think, went up to talk to people in the region, and they were all like “Women? Everyone, what’s this women only thing? We’re all facing potentially precarious work conditions / abuse from our bosses”. So the data, as presented by our ideologically motivated/biased government, does not reflect the reality on the ground.
I mean, both can be true. Reminds me of an “All lives matter” type argument.
I’d argue that acceptance of the rather far-left gender-diversity crowds multitude of genders was always generally low, and largely based on opinions of convenience for people asked. “Do you support gender diversity?” “Well, our government says if I don’t, it’s potentially a hate crime/hate speech – sorta like calling out the genocide in Israel gets termed as such, or questioning the narrative around first nations – so, uh, yes, I support it, sure whatever, so long as there’s no financial commitment involved or followup questions. Let me get back to my life”.
This is a weird take. Many polls are anonymous and/or online, so why would people not answer truthfully? The linked article also gives some reasoning for why it’s decreased:
Between 2023 and 2025, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Alberta passed legislation restricting the rights of trans and gender-diverse individuals to access a safe school environment. Alberta also implemented restrictions to gender-affirming healthcare for youth and participation in sport for trans women and girls.
During this timeframe, anti-trans sentiment and discourse became louder and more visible. This includes discourse by political leaders as well as online dehumanization and mis- and disinformation.
You also didn’t have as aggressive a push to educate young children about the fringe cases of sexuality / expose them to that stuff with clearly political/ideological intentions
No, this simply isn’t true. Most schools just teach acceptance, nothing to do with politics or ideologies.
I mean, both can be true. Reminds me of an “All lives matter” type argument.
Yes, both can be true. However, the government studies / funding / attention is focused on genderised issues and promoting certain narratives – ex. “We need to fund programs for women because they’re in precarious work situations up north”. Such programs shift the focus from “workers in precarious positions need help” to virtue signaling nothingness. It inflates the impression that there’s a huge gap in how the two genders are treated, even though talking to people ‘on the ground’, they readily/openly say it impacts everyone, and everyone needs assistance, not just one gender. One of the likely reasons ‘men’ are veering hard to the right, is that the left is viewed as following this genderised approach, funding initiatives / programs based on gender or racial lenses, none of which tend to benefit ‘men’. And our acceptance of our government being so heavily entrenched along gender/racial lines, is so complete that even when a study is shown to be blatantly biased towards highlighting just women’s issues, ignoring the larger issue, the default response from folks is “both can be true”, an inference towards anyone noting the discrepancy being a bigot, and a shrug.
Many polls are anonymous and/or online
True, but this one was online and by phone with interviewer, as per the article. Still, the broader point is that people will answer survey questions based on what they “think” the right answer “should” be, based on things like gov / social media site influences, rather than what they actually think/how they actually would act. If you have no “skin in the game”, certain questions don’t matter to you, so you’ll provide whatever answer is the least likely to get you in trouble at the time. In prior years, saying anything negative about certain topics would get you reprimanded. Not so much these days, in some areas.
Noting Alberta’s gov actions in the article, I wouldn’t say is/was a ‘cause’ of the sentiment changing, though it’d prolly be correlated. You could just as reasonably say that the Schools in BC where they’ve cancelled things like track competitions, eliminated boys/girls races, as a response to the inability to square the gender circle, could also be prompting parents/kids to say “enoughs enough already, we can’t change/turf every aspect of social life to accommodate a tiny minority, there need to be limits”.
No, this simply isn’t true. Most schools just teach acceptance, nothing to do with politics or ideologies.
Seems fitting to point this out, seeing as we’re Canadian and it’s a Canadian heritage moment: the medium is the message. Having things like drag story time’s become widely discussed news items, you could argue that the news media was complicit in fanning the flames – but the act of specifically having people from marginalised, adult life-styles with sexual connotations, interact with kids in an effort to normalize those sorts of lifestyles is a message that’s not lost on more conservative folks.
And our acceptance of our government being so heavily entrenched along gender/racial lines, is so complete that even when a study is shown to be blatantly biased towards highlighting just women’s issues, ignoring the larger issue, the default response from folks is “both can be true”, an inference towards anyone noting the discrepancy being a bigot, and a shrug.
I mean, the reason why there is more focus on women’s issues, and racialized issues, etc, is that women have been under-represented in the past, so that’s why there’s more of a focus on them. That’s not to say that men don’t have issue either, but groups who have been under-represented are now getting their representation, etc. Does that mean men don’t have issues too? No, of course not.
True, but this one was online and by phone with interviewer, as per the article. Still, the broader point is that people will answer survey questions based on what they “think” the right answer “should” be, based on things like gov / social media site influences, rather than what they actually think/how they actually would act. If you have no “skin in the game”, certain questions don’t matter to you, so you’ll provide whatever answer is the least likely to get you in trouble at the time. In prior years, saying anything negative about certain topics would get you reprimanded. Not so much these days, in some areas.
So you are saying, with most online and phone interviews, that the results will essentially be wrong because most people will just answer with that they believe is the “right” answer, rather than what they actually think?
Having things like drag story time’s become widely discussed news items, you could argue that the news media was complicit in fanning the flames
The only reason those events were in the news (at least to my knowledge), was that people were protesting them.
but the act of specifically having people from marginalised, adult life-styles with sexual connotations, interact with kids in an effort to normalize those sorts of lifestyles is a message that’s not lost on more conservative folks.
Again, as far as I know, those events didn’t happen at schools, and if they did, they were optional. Most that I am aware of happened in public libraries, etc, and if you didn’t want your kids to go, you didn’t take them.
adult life-styles with sexual connotations
There’s sexual connotations with drag?
I mean, the reason why there is more focus on women’s issues, and racialized issues, etc, is that women have been under-represented in the past, so that’s why there’s more of a focus on them. That’s not to say that men don’t have issue either, but groups who have been under-represented are now getting their representation, etc. Does that mean men don’t have issues too? No, of course not.
So, two comments on this one – First, is that with studies focusing on a narrow/reduced scope, targeting for example just the issues facing women in the TFW system in agricultural areas, and dedicating resources to women’s issues on that front without even assessing whether it’s a genderized issue or one that impacts everyone regardless of gender, government systems have, at the very least the impression, that they’ve over-corrected for a problem that they are now refusing to measure. Wronging men by ignoring them, because women were ignored generations ago, is not a good path forward. Second, many of the forms of “equity” programs in Canada – such as ‘equity employment group’ hiring preferences amongst the federal government, which impede ‘white men’ exclusively due to how we define an ‘equity employment group’ – are implemented without a condition for when the additional supports/“reverse discrimination for equity sake!” will be ‘complete’/done. Like the public sector split was at parity in 2000, give or take. It’s now more lopsided in favour of women, than it was in the 1980s towards men when legislation was put in to ‘even things out’. We still have preferential hiring for women, and it’s been a full generation / ~30 years, with the scales tipping more and more in an inequitable way – but most progressives don’t care, as it’s just men gettin hosed.
So you are saying, with most online and phone interviews, that the results will essentially be wrong because most people will just answer with that they believe is the “right” answer, rather than what they actually think?
Yes/no. I’d put it more like Surveys on certain topics / socially “hot” items, are less reflective of reality ever since the advent of the internet, basically. Influencers and social media sites don’t sell advertising, so much as they sell the ability to skew the conversation / slant things to their preference, by inundating people with spam/propaganda. For years, Canada and the USA’s media channels were aggressively in favour of left-wing ideas, so much so, and for so long, that many people just went along with it. Even more, online campaigns can be heavily skewed by bots/malicious agents. Realistically, I think it’s a better gauge to look at people’s actual behaviours as data points for this sort of thing – particularly when the subject actually impacts their lives. Like people started protesting drag story times, as you noted, a few years back – but could they have protested them even sooner? Not really, as they didn’t start popping up until ~2015ish – at the height of things like Trudeau’s virtue signalling politics. Prior to that, they were fine saying “Yeah, sure, I support trans people doing whatever”, but then it impacted their day to day more / their kids, and suddenly a slice of them took action. Virtue signalling does not reflect reality, nor does it sway opinion given how flimsy those signals generally are.
There’s sexual connotations with drag?
Contrary to what lots of people on here often seem to think, I’m a fairly staunch moderate/green party sort. I’ve happily gone to drag shows with friends, and feel I have a pretty good grasp of it. I’d wager I’ve had more exposure to the community than most. I’d say feigning that it doesn’t have sexual connotations, is like saying a furry is just a person in a costume, no sexual connotations there! Yiff away!
Wronging men by ignoring them, because women were ignored generations ago, is not a good path forward. Second, many of the forms of “equity” programs in Canada – such as ‘equity employment group’ hiring preferences amongst the federal government, which impede ‘white men’ exclusively due to how we define an ‘equity employment group’ – are implemented without a condition for when the additional supports/“reverse discrimination for equity sake!” will be ‘complete’/done
Men aren’t being wronged. They aren’t being impeded. They aren’t being ignored. They are just giving a fair chance to all other groups and picking the best candidate.
but then it impacted their day to day more / their kids
You are not listening to me. It doesn’t affect “day to day / their kids”. It is not being forced on anyone.
Contrary to what lots of people on here often seem to think, I’m a fairly staunch moderate/green party sort. I’ve happily gone to drag shows with friends, and feel I have a pretty good grasp of it. I’d wager I’ve had more exposure to the community than most. I’d say feigning that it doesn’t have sexual connotations, is like saying a furry is just a person in a costume, no sexual connotations there! Yiff away!
I disagree. Sure, there can be people who get sexual gratification from being in drag, as well as furries, but that doesn’t mean it applies to everyone. Some people like to dress up / perform / be a furry / whatever, just for fun!
Men aren’t being wronged. They aren’t being impeded. They aren’t being ignored. They are just giving a fair chance to all other groups and picking the best candidate.
I’m curious if your opinion is based on any actual knowledge/background on how the government functions, or even the job application process for working for the federal government. I’ve previously, years ago, applied for essentially a general clerical type position. They literally cut all white guys in round 1 of screening, with letters saying something along the lines of “We’ve eliminated you from consideration at this time as you did not identify as a member of an equity employment group”. When you have a bunch of jobs open, and one of the primary criteria you’re focused on is equity/diversity, it’s one of the very first rounds of cuts involved – you simultaneously want to cut down the number that get called in for further screening to lighten the work load quick, and also don’t want to waste time on candidates who would be eliminated on perfunctory reasons in the final rounds. These programs, as implemented, do not provide a ‘fair chance’ nor result in ‘the best candidate’, but rather they establish a base line minimum threshold required for the position, then filter on race/demographics to determine who gets short listed, then they pick the person they think best suited after that.
Anecdotally, I personally know a couple people that’ve worked for the government since around 2005-ish. One of their main complaints is how it isn’t a meritocracy in any way – people are commonly promoted for optics reasons, even when they have no certifications / skill for the position they’re in. I’ve heard these sorts of stories from people I’ve known for decades, in regards to three different departments at the fed gov.
You are not listening to me. It doesn’t affect “day to day / their kids”. It is not being forced on anyone.
No, I think I’ve responded fine to your earlier comment, and addressed your position. Saying that something is impacting their day to day doesn’t necessarily mean that it needs to be a forced government program through the school system or similar space. I don’t think I ever said they were being ‘forced’ to attend drag story times – in terms of listening to each other, that’s something that I’m pretty sure you injected yourself; from my pov, it’s more that they’re being forced/impacted by the situation/media attention. Their earlier “Yeah, sure, whatever, so long as there’s no followups, let me go about my day” was interrupted: they couldn’t just go about their day, they instead got a constant drip of social media on the subject, and their news cycles became packed with it. They were forced to engage with the subject more, and their more ‘honest’ reactions came out.
As a sorta strange way to try and explain it through a different vehicle – it’s sorta akin to a drinkin buddy and you having a conversation one night, where they suggest some totally batshit activities to do that are stupidly expensive/far-fetched, dangerous, and totally not your thing. At the time, you don’t really think it plausible, and you’re havin a good time with your friend, so you just go along with whatever hair brained idea they come up with. Shortly after, they win the lottery, and tell you to quit your job cause you’re gonna do the batshit bucket list. Suddenly, you gotta contend with the idea that you may actually have to go through with the thing, so you dip. Your position didn’t change on the subject, but your environment changed around you, forcing you to take action / be more honest about your position.
I disagree. Sure, there can be people who get sexual gratification from being in drag, as well as furries, but that doesn’t mean it applies to everyone. Some people like to dress up / perform / be a furry / whatever, just for fun!
And some people, nudists, like to be naked for fun! Doesn’t mean kids should get exposed to it regularly. Doesn’t mean you should have events to help make kids ok with naked adults. There are some things that are generally ‘adult’ oriented, because the borders between the group that does it for ‘fun’ and the other group are so blurry.
You made your points well and argued them without finger pointing. I didn’t agree with everything you wrote, but thank you for taking the time to write such thoughtful and honest comments.
You seem to be just talking in circles so I’m going to stop engaging.
🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩
