Tracking the anti-LBGTQ+ movement

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Is the notion that there are innate population-level differences in athletic ability between sexes that at the most elite level of woman's sport could give transwoman an advantage over those who are born female Russian misinformation?

How many transwomen are competing and dominating against cis-women in elite-level athletic leagues/competitions?

You might not consider yourself transphobic but you are certainly showing yourself to be susceptible to Trans-scare propaganda.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I got to wondering today as I walked downtown at lunch.

There's a Carnival cruise ship in port, with lots of American tourists about. Most businesses have pride flags up, or the stickers of the flag in their windows, the Centre for Craft & Design has a flower box in front that's painted as the pride flag.

What affect does the openness, tolerance and acceptance in Canada (or any other country) have on the American tourist when they see how commonplace it is to simply not hate someone for being different from you.

... as an aside, obviously I don't live in Alberta. Would be kinda cool if there was a Carnival ship downtown Calgary.

Also just realizing that the ship in today was the Carnival Oride. That made me chuckle as I typed this.

Honest question, but is there a significant difference between the US and Canada on acceptance? The government is one thing but I would think a significant percentage of Americans are just fine with it. Just like a number of Canadians are probably not.

[jayswin]

Yikes, eye opening thread in the last page or so and very similar to my interactions in Alberta in recent years. "But women's sports!!!!!!" said guys who have historically mocked and ridiculed women's sports.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Yikes, eye opening thread in the last page or so and very similar to my interactions in Alberta in recent years. "But women's sports!!!!!!" said guys who have historically mocked and ridiculed women's sports.

Yup, pretending to care about women so far as it gives them the role as protector, which opens a justification to attack who they have been told is the enemy. Most have probably never even met a trans person or had a conversation about their needs. You never hear them offer alternatives that could satisfy everyone, which tells you exactly how few ####s they give about their fellow humans, and the woman they use as a shield any time they need to justify it. Make no mistake ladies, these guys don't give a #### about you, either.

[CliffFletcher]

Elite female athletes have expressed support for restrictions on transgender women participation in their sports, such as the World Aquatics decision.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...ns-competition

And public support for transgender women participating in women's sport is considerably lower than support for transgender rights in other areas. 21 per cent of Canadians support transgender athletes competing in the gender they identify with rather than the sex they were assigned at birth. Meanwhile, 74 per cent say transgendered Canadians should be protected from discrimination in employment, housing, and access to businesses. For more context, 70 per cent of Canadians say same-sex couples should have the same rights to adopt children as heterosexual couples do.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/canadian...port-declining

In other words, more than two-thirds of Canadians who support the right of same-sex couples to adopt children do not approve of transgender athletes competing in the gender they identify with rather than their gender at birth. It's a big stretch to dismiss them all as ignorant bigots. Just as it's a big stretch to chalk up the decisions made by bodies like the World Athletics, Cycling, and Aquatics associations to ignorance and bigotry, considering the extensive research and consultation that went into those decisions.

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sp...es-2023-03-23/

And 'it only affects a tiny number of people' argument cuts both ways. A ban on transgender women participating as women in athletics affects only a tiny number of people (including a tiny fraction of trans women), so why waste energy worrying about it? That's not a sound basis for contesting conflicting rights.

This issue is a lot more difficult and nuanced that some folks around here want to believe.

[Fuzz]

Yes, there are nuances that should be debated and decided by experts. Not politicians or the voices of the mob who have been used as pawns in a culture war, stoked by the Russians.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Oh look, another one.

Why don’t you tell us again about how using correct pronouns makes it hard for you to accept LGBTQ people.

I believe the use of pronouns should be optional for those struggling with their identity, and not mandatory. IMO the use of the large number of different pronouns, that apply to a relatively small segment of our population, tends to overcomplicate our language.

As far as LGBTQ is concerned, there is a large number of these people in my family, and they are accepted by everyone. That's how we were all raised i.e. to accept people who are different.

As far as many of today's social issues are concerned, I consider many of them to be in a state of transition, and through time and respectful and healthy non-political debate, will eventually get resolved to everyone's benefit. As always, it just takes time for society to change their attitudes.

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I believe the use of pronouns should be optional for those struggling with their identity, and not mandatory.

Do you not inherently use pronouns daily?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I believe the use of pronouns should be optional for those struggling with their identity, and not mandatory. When I think of the subject, it reminds me of Justin's virtue signaling and doing everything possible to get votes.

As far as my acceptance of LGBTQ people, there seems to be a genetic predisposition, as there is a high number of them in my family, and they are accepted by everyone. That's how we were all raised.

As far as many of today's social issues are concerned, I consider many of them to be in a state of transition, and through time and respectful and healthy non-political debate, will eventually get resolved to everyone's benefit.

So you are in disagreement with the government on their choices, correct?

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by BigThief

Do you not inherently use pronouns daily?

yep

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So you are in disagreement with the government on their choices, correct?

on the fence

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

on the fence

Well you said "respectful and healthy non-political debate," which is absolutely the opposite of what this government is doing. And I think any time a government removes the rights of citizens, they better have a long list of defendable reasons to do that. Which I'm sure you can agree, they do not.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So you are in disagreement with the government on their choices, correct?

I guess the question should be asked, which government, and what choice?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I guess the question should be asked, which government, and what choice?

I assumed we were talking about Alberta and their anti-human bills.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I assumed we were talking about Alberta and their anti-human bills.

They're against Humans? Well...that could be a problematic policy.

What do they propose? Extinction? Is there an asteroid coming that we dont know about?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Locke

They're against Humans? Well...that could be a problematic policy.

What do they propose? Extinction? Is there an asteroid coming that we dont know about?

Are trans people not human?
And yes, iI'm sure the ghouls making these policies would be much happier if they were extinct, which is part of the goal of laws denying them healthcare, and delaying their ability to access timely care before irreversible body changes happen.


So despite your misguided post, you nailed it. Congrats?

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I assumed we were talking about Alberta and their anti-human bills.

There are various factors involved e.g. child's vs parents' rights. On this I tend to lean towards parents' rights.

There are age factors e.g. when child is old enough to make certain decisions. On this I tend to lean toward the higher ages e.g. minimum 16 or higher

What does the data say, what is the current state of the science, and who benefits?#

Etc.

[Fuzz]

Ok, so those are all your personal thoughts, and an appeal to data. And that's fine, but it's not how policy should be made. I don't know what age or mental state or any other factors are correct, and the reality is they will be different for every individual, which is why it should be left to subject experts to make those decisions, which is the opposite of what the government of Alberta did.


But we already know they do not care what experts think on anything, and have no interest in governing that way. Which is why I am so hard on UCP voters. They support ignorance.

[Fuzz]

Oh, and the "who benefits" part is key here. If we do what I suggest, society as a whole benefits. I'm curious who benefits from restrictive and discriminatory policies and what motives are behind that. Any thoughts?

[puffnstuff]

re Parents Rights

Parents have a right to liberty. And that affords them the liberty to raise their children in accordance with their own values, most notably their religious values. But—and this is important—that doesn’t give them the right to override their children’s own rights under the#Charter, notably their children’s rights to life and security of the person.

The seminal case concerning parents’ rights is the Supreme Court’s decision in#B. (R.) v. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto. In that decision, the Supreme Court held that while parents can raise children how they choose, they are#not#free to do so in a manner that is contrary to their children’s best interests.#

As usual, in constitutional law, whatever rights parents enjoy are subject to reasonable limitations.

But parents’ limited freedoms are not what conservatives are talking about when they talk about “parents’ rights.”

What they mean is parents’ “right” to dictate their children’s gender identity and expression over and against their children’s own right to choose who they are.