Tracking the anti-LBGTQ+ movement

[Ryan Coke]

But it’s OK to nitpick minor details as long as I have convinced myself that they are wrong, I am right, so any further understanding or tolerance isn’t required.

It’s hilariously sad.

[Shazam]

Russia's been anti-hetero for ages now. This is not a new thing.

Why does OP think the same thing is going to happen here? Do you have a timeline?

[2Stonedbirds]

Because the outrage machine said its coming.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sorry, I actually blended you and RichieRich into one person on the LGB thing. That’s my bad.

But my point about the vague generalities stands. It’s fine to “both sides” the thing to death I guess, but while doing that you’re not actually listening or engaging with one side with any honesty, so it’s a bit meaningless, right? Very easy to say, and very easy to hand waive the entire discussion away as some silly “two extremes going at it” thing, but what are the extremes you’re talking about?

Fair. Asking why a particular side believes what they believe in and truly understanding their POV. It’s not that hard to do but it seems like conclusions are drawn on the smallest perceived point.

Re: the Jordan Peterson quip previously. I couldn’t care less. I respect the guy to some degree because some of it is logical until he get sidetracked but I digress. I was annoyed that someone will discredit you with just a couple words instead of the message of understanding. So let’s take the extreme right and talk about why Russians would want to kill people. Ask why? Is it cultural? Okay, why is that? And you dog further and further to understand that there may be misconceptions they have and work towards breaking those down over time. Instead we have niggling at the most ridiculous things. Lanny’s been really logical in what he’s written here.

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I don't really believe you



No ####ing clue

I am proud of my Canadian Citizenship.

I fully understand and I am proud of my Canadian citizenship and heritage as well. Perhaps though, can you see where I may be coming from?

You may not have a clue about what the thoughts, politics, cultural norms and more are from your native country and that is fine.

I can tell you without reservation that a lot of immigrants and people from immigrant backgrounds are looking at a lot of aspects of what is being discussed here in a completely different lens. Full stop. It's my social circle amongst all backgrounds and then some.

Speaking of my parents and grandparents who came to Canada, in the 50's, 60's, 70"s etc. The "type" of immigrants that generally arrived in larger numbers from places like Europe were the poorly educated, the farm workers, the laborer's, the people from the poor small towns and villages who were looking for a better life post WW2 disaster. It wasn't the highly educated and wealthy from the capitals of Europe that were fleeing.

Fast forward to a more modern Canada that has been bringing in 350-500k immigrants a year and who are primarily coming in and from what countries? There isn't a mass exodus of law, medical and engineering trained Europeans coming to Canada. There is a lot of what I described above but from regions like in Africa, the middle east, Asian, southeast Asia and more.

Generally speaking a lot of people whom I describe above may have more conservative, more culturally minded and traditional lines of thinking when it comes to LGBTQ rights, norms and ideas. It's not like there is a huge swaths of people coming from countries where they truly believe they own their wives, wives being plural, that they believe in this "Canadian concept" of 6 year old children choosing their gender with the help of Joe and Jane Canuck from Main Street Alberta.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I find it difficult to make the case for a social movement being problematic because it isn't 'organic'. Was the racial inequality or gender discrimination of the 20th century 'organic' and happened according to some preferred textbook definition?

To say that a social movement isn't happening 'organically' is to say there is never a convenient time or method that would ever satisfy the complainant. Human institutional frameworks do not evolve like that and people should accept it.

I am not sure if these types of cultural shifts ever are organic and seamless though. Look at when slavery ended. It was an abrupt change and took 100 years for the civil rights movement to come into full force. Or woman's suffrage, kind of the same thing. The change came quickly, but there were still decades of friction and resistance that lasts even up until today among some sections of society.

Unfortunately, I think with the LGBTQ+ movement, it is going to go through the same thing as history repeats itself again. Humans are pretty predictable.

[Yeah_Baby]

lol Europe is having the rise of far right parties with every so vague crypto fascism and North American culture war are the ones who have lost the plot?

Yeah, culture diversity as opposed to ethnocentric European hegemony is the issue.

And for what it's worth, plenty of folks who immigrate to Canada are Doctors and Lawyers and Engineers from non European countires. Not sure what your point is there?
Other than to suggest non European countries and immigrants are 'backwards?'

[The Big Chill]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

How should people who have concerns about their treatment take on such challenges? Work through existing processes / governance frameworks while trying to educate people on the issues and allow them to become accepting on their own.

So the gays should put their expectations of equality on hold for a few more years and get out there and teach the bigots how to not hate?

Why can’t we all just shift the onus to the bigots and tell them to catch up already?

[Yeah_Baby]

There is a difference between equity and fairness. Everyone is equal under the law (in theory) but that doesn't mean everyone has equal access to or opportunities. That's what I think a lot of people (sorta of like Lanny's comments) miss.

It's like saying there should be a straight pride parade, when culturally everything is a straight pride parade. It's the assumed 'norm'. It's expected. Honestly that's what's more of than not forced on folks.

Or like people who want a 'christian pride month'. Our entire calendar of stat holidays i built around christian festivals. Try being any other religion and having to take extra time off etc to try and celebrate.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

lol Europe is having the rise of far right parties with every so vague crypto fascism and North American culture war are the ones who have lost the plot?

Yeah, culture diversity as opposed to ethnocentric European hegemony is the issue.

And for what it's worth, plenty of folks who immigrate to Canada are Doctors and Lawyers and Engineers from non European countires. Not sure what your point is there?
Other than to suggest non European countries and immigrants are 'backwards?'

Here’s the global LGBT Equality Index:

https://www.equaldex.com/equality-index

You’ll notice Canada (along with a handful of Northern European countries) is way up there in the top-right corner.

Here are the top 10 countries of origin for immigrants to Canada in 2022*:

1. India
2. China
3. Afghanistan
4. Nigeria
5. Philippines
6. France
7. Pakistan
8. Iran
9. United States
10. Syria

#6 and #9 are somewhat more restrictive of LGBT rights than Canada.

#1, #2, and #5 are far more restrictive.

#3, #4, #7, #8, and #10 are some of the most brutally hostile countries to LGBT identities and behaviours on the planet. There are no gay clubs to close in those countries because it would be unthinkable that they would exist in the first place.

Yes, immigrants to Canada from those countries tend to be more educated and liberal than the population of the source country in general. But most people who immigrate to Canada from Pakistan, Nigeria, and Syria are not tolerant, liberal doctors. As a group they are still far more religiously observant and conservative than native-born Canadians.

It takes wilful ignorance to pretend that large-scale immigration from extremely socially conservative countries has no effect on public attitudes in this country.

*If we included 2023, Ukraine - where attitudes aren’t much difference than in Russia - would be right up there too.

[Icantwhisper]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Here’s the global LGBT Equality Index:

https://www.equaldex.com/equality-index

You’ll notice Canada (along with a handful of Northern European countries) is way up there in the top-right corner.

Here are the top 10 countries of origin for immigrants to Canada in 2022*:

1. India
2. China
3. Afghanistan
4. Nigeria
5. Philippines
6. France
7. Pakistan
8. Iran
9. United States
10. Syria

#6 and #9 are somewhat more restrictive of LGBT rights than Canada.

#1, #2, and #5 are far more restrictive.

#3, #4, #7, #8, and #10 are some of the most brutally hostile countries to LGBT identities and behaviours on the planet. There are no gay clubs to close in those countries because it would be unthinkable that they would exist in the first place.

Yes, immigrants to Canada from those countries tend to be more educated and liberal than the population of the source country in general. But most people who immigrate to Canada from Pakistan, Nigeria, and Syria are not tolerant, liberal doctors. As a group they are still far more religiously observant and conservative than native-born Canadians.

It takes wilful ignorance to pretend that large-scale immigration from extremely socially conservative countries has no effect on public attitudes in this country.

*If we included 2023, Ukraine - where attitudes aren’t much difference than in Russia - would be right up there too.

That's great and all but I would wager the largest population of intolerant people in Alberta is still the white male born and raised. We all talk like Alberta is so progressive in it's acceptance, maybe we're all sheltered in our specific friend group that makes us feel that way. Maybe those immigrants are leaving those countries for a reason? They don't hold the same beliefs?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

There is a difference between equity and fairness. Everyone is equal under the law (in theory) but that doesn't mean everyone has equal access to or opportunities. That's what I think a lot of people (sorta of like Lanny's comments) miss.

That’s the progressive case for abandoning liberal universalism. It’s well-intentioned. But it betrays a dangerously naive ignorance of human nature.

Institutionalizing identity-based politics as a way to redress injustice and right past wrongs legitimizes identity-based politics for everyone, not just the groups who advocates of equity deem disadvantaged. There’s no world where we can have identity-based politics for women, LGBTQ, Muslims, Indigenous, and Black citizens and not see identity-based politics for men, straights, Christians, and White citizens. That’s just the way humans operate. And yes, people have long been organizing along white, Christian, etc. identities. But the remedy to that isn’t everyone joining the struggle along identarian lines - it’s to fight stronger to ensure that people are not treated differently due to innate characteristics.

Universalism isn’t perfect. But it’s better than the alternative - which is the fragmentation of civic identity into a relentless zero-sum war between groups.

https://theconversation.com/how-a-ne...justice-217085

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That’s the progressive case for abandoning liberal universalism. It’s well-intentioned. But it betrays a dangerously naive ignorance of human nature.

Institutionalizing identity-based politics as a way to redress injustice and right past wrongs legitimizes identity-based politics for everyone, not just the groups who advocates of equity deem disadvantaged. There’s no world where we can have identity-based politics for women, LGBTQ, Muslims, Indigenous, and Black citizens and not see identity-based politics for men, straights, Christians, and White citizens. That’s just the way humans operate. And yes, people have long been organizing along white, Christian, etc. identities. But the remedy to that isn’t everyone joining the struggle along identarian lines - it’s to fight stronger to ensure that people are not treated differently due to innate characteristics.

Universalism isn’t perfect. But it’s better than the alternative - which is the fragmentation of civic identity into a relentless zero-sum war between groups.

https://theconversation.com/how-a-ne...justice-217085

Sure, they can have their own struggles to achieve equality. Once we remove special treatment for religious groups, well, uhm, OK guess we are done here.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That’s the progressive case for abandoning liberal universalism. It’s well-intentioned. But it betrays a dangerously naive ignorance of human nature.

Institutionalizing identity-based politics as a way to redress injustice and right past wrongs legitimizes identity-based politics for everyone, not just the groups who advocates of equity deem disadvantaged. There’s no world where we can have identity-based politics for women, LGBTQ, Muslims, Indigenous, and Black citizens and not see identity-based politics for men, straights, Christians, and White citizens. That’s just the way humans operate. And yes, people have long been organizing along white, Christian, etc. identities. But the remedy to that isn’t everyone joining the struggle along identarian lines.

Universalism isn’t perfect. But it’s better than the alternative - which is the fragmentation of civic identity into a relentless zero-sum war between groups.

https://theconversation.com/how-a-ne...justice-217085

Ultimately, it's about access to power. A commonality of several of IDs has most of the wealth and political power. A Ruling class if you well. A bourgeoise. The rest of the folks are exploited by that ruling class, along intersectional lines will have more status in the social hierarchy as they more closely match the ruling class, however that doesn't mean that those within the working class (a proletariat if you will) can't and won't build solidarity across the various intersections of ID.

So I disagree that intersectionality has undermined the Left(TM). What's undermined the Left(TM) is the oppressive structures being replicated within in. Cis White Male Gays being the considered the baseline for Queer IDs etc. Also the Left has always had various sectional debates. Hell, go red or watch Reds. The left had the same patterns over a 100 years ago. You also can't deny the impact that NeoLiberalism and the so called Moral Majority had in crushing the New Left of the 70s

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Icantwhisper

That's great and all but I would wager the largest population of intolerant people in Alberta is still the white male born and raised. We all talk like Alberta is so progressive in it's acceptance, maybe we're all sheltered in our specific friend group that makes us feel that way. Maybe those immigrants are leaving those countries for a reason? They don't hold the same beliefs?

Maybe most visibly in the political realm. But I doubt that’s the case of privately held beliefs. White men are the least religious demographic in the U.S., and I expect the same holds true in Canada. First-generation immigrants are more religious than the Canadian population as a whole. And if you look at where much of the vocal opposition to sex education programs in Canadian schools have taken place in recent years, it’s in immigration-rich communities in urban centres, like the Peel region of the GTA and Richmond on the Lower Mainland..

The first municipality in the U.S. to have a Muslim-majority city council banned pride flags from city property earlier this year.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...e-flags-banned

I don’t see any reason to believe Muslim immigrants to Canada are, as a population, dramatically less conservative than their counterparts who immigrate to the U.S.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

There is a difference between equity and fairness. Everyone is equal under the law (in theory) but that doesn't mean everyone has equal access to or opportunities. That's what I think a lot of people (sorta of like Lanny's comments) miss.

What’s ironic is you don’t recognize that there is a difference between equity and equality. You conflate the terms when they are very different concepts. Equity can be enforced by the courts or some other control mechanism but equality can only be granted by society at large, and that cannot be mandated. That’s where the problem lays.

[blender]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I wonder if part of the issue boils down to the US being a duopoly by design.

Us/Them
Democrat/Republican
State/Federal
North/South
USA/USSR
Axis/Allies
Continental Army/British Army

Rarely in US culture is there a spectrum, or are things presented in a spectrum.

Does that make the acceptance/understanding of LGBTQ2S+ issues more difficult?

Given the US is the dominant media broadcaster in the (English) world, does that cause greater difficulty for LGBTQ2S+ issues across the globe?

It isn't just the US.
We are living in a post-colonial culture that is based on a binary world view.
Black-White
Left-Right
Occidental-Oriental
Gay-Straight
North-South
etc.
The shadow of colonialism is everywhere. In many places it is still fresh. Israel-Palestine is a current example, as is the war in Ukraine. Residential schools in our backyard are another example that we are only just confronting.

It is common for people to see the world in dualistic terms because that is the way the power and information structures around us are formed. It is the way we understand the world because it is how we were raised. We don't know anything different unless we are educated about it.

[CliffFletcher]

Binary outlooks and dualism predate Western colonialism by three thousand years. Blame the Persians, I guess.

[PepsiFree]

LGBTQ+ asks aren’t really extreme in any way. At the end of the day, it’s access to the same rights, freedoms, opportunities, and comforts that the dominant culture doesn’t just enjoy regularly, but expects.

You don’t have to create entirely new athletic divisions or prison systems (something I saw suggested in another thread) for trans people. You don’t have to wait until society shifts away from identity politics and towards “universalism” or whatever before you do anything. These are just make-believe solutions designed to give the impression that somebody is “thinking about it” without ever having to do anything actionable or think of anything relevant.

These ideas, along with the whole concept of patiently waiting for an equality that comes over time once society deems itself “ready” to grant it, is the kind of privileged speak that only comes from people who don’t have to face any of the problems they’re trying to solve. People who already enjoy the luxuries of being part of the dominant culture. People who complain about diversity hires while never once questioning if they got a job over someone who was discriminated against and who would never fight for that person even if they did. People who get mad about being corrected over pronouns or acronyms but would never, ever hesitate to correct someone if they got their name wrong, gender wrong, or title wrong, and would act grief-stricken if the person they corrected went and got mad about it.

Unfortunately, we live in the real world where we have to play by real rules and fight for those things in the confines of the society we’re in, with small goals that are actually achievable and not “just remake society completely.”

All while, in the real world, people are actively working against those small goals. By doing things like raiding gay clubs, or shooting up drag shows, or protesting outside of libraries, or vandalizing places where Pride events are held (the last two in the faraway land of Alberta).

Like, maybe we could discuss re-making the entire way society functions after we clear the hurdle of “people complaining about pronouns”? Baby steps, maybe? Perhaps people with the big ideas they love discussing ad nauseam could put a fraction of their efforts toward things that actually make a difference in real life today?

[jayswin]

Excellent post