Tracking the anti-LBGTQ+ movement

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Absurd to characterize a manichaean world view as the product of "colonialism" or anything particularly American. The "my group good, other group evil" has as noted always been a thing, back to fearing the members of the primitive tribe from the next valley over. But those instincts have been exploited for profit in particular in the last couple of decades by the proliferation of variety and choice of information or opinion you can consume (while blurring the lines between those two things), a trend which has had as its obvious and inevitable result some of the most effective group polarization you could ever hope for in any controlled psychological experiment... in other words, see my signature.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

You'd be burying your head in the sand if you think it could possibly not affect other people's lives. Complaints are made against people who may not use the pronoun of choice, whether it be intentionally or unintentionally. Those complaints have led to additions to workstation files, disciplinary action, or termination. The introduction of cancel culture and these rights battles has led to some very interesting dynamics. Careers have been limited, damaged, or destroyed because of something that supposedly doesn't affect them. That is without looking at public pressure and the impact it can have directly on businesses or stock prices for what appears to be simple decisions.

You think people are getting called in to HR because they inadvertently used a wrong pronoun?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by bluejays

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.

I made the Jordan Peterson quip because you made the ridiculous assertion that the left wants people jailed for not using the proper pronouns. The most notable person to make that ridiculous claim is Peterson.

[blender]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

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

Fair enough, but the pervasive global effects are a more recent and relevant phenomenon.

[blender]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Absurd to characterize a manichaean world view as the product of "colonialism" or anything particularly American. The "my group good, other group evil" has as noted always been a thing, back to fearing the members of the primitive tribe from the next valley over. But those instincts have been exploited for profit in particular in the last couple of decades by the proliferation of variety and choice of information or opinion you can consume (while blurring the lines between those two things), a trend which has had as its obvious and inevitable result some of the most effective group polarization you could ever hope for in any controlled psychological experiment... in other words, see my signature.

I think your point is totally valid, but I would argue that there is a difference between the natural human tendencies to view the world in us/them terms and the power dynamics of colonialism that exploit and perpetuate those tendencies. I feel I could have made that distinction clearer in my comments.

As to your comments about online behaviour, which are more relevant to the specific discussion at hand in this thread, I would agree completely.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I made the Jordan Peterson quip because you made the ridiculous assertion that the left wants people jailed for not using the proper pronouns. The most notable person to make that ridiculous claim is Peterson.

I gave an example of what an extreme person on the left would say. He gave the example of a person on the extreme right wanting them dead. On the left he used the word "please", like anyone on the extreme of either side would use the word please. Anyway, to say that it's a ridiculous claim isn't right as it as this Bill opens the door to it. Is it conceivable it could happen, sure. Are all the left pushing for it? Of course not.



https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/featur...c-16-explained

The Canadian Human Rights Act does not mention pronouns either. The act protects certain groups from discrimination.

“Would it cover the accidental misuse of a pronoun? I would say it’s very unlikely,” Cossman says. “Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.”

If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?

It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says.

If the person refused to comply with the tribunal's order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says.

“It could happen,” Brown says. “Is it likely to happen? I don’t think so. But, my opinion on whether or not that's likely has a lot to do with the particular case that you're looking at.” “The path to prison is not straightforward. It’s not easy. But, it’s there. It’s been used before in breach of tribunal orders.”

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by 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?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by 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.

Rights and freedoms are easy to identify. Opportunities are far more difficult.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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.

You have it completely backwards. For most of the last century, it was liberal universalism that drove progress in Canada. The idea that people should not be treated differently by law and by our institutions due to their sex, religion, or race. We changed legislation and reformed institutions. We saw massive gains in women working and going to college, in minorities pursuing higher education and engaging in culture and media, in striking discrimination against homosexuality from our laws. All of those gains were made by universalism - treating everyone the same, instead of treating them different like we did in the bad old days.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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.

What actions do you think liberal-minded people in Canada should be taking today that they aren’t?

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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.

Presumably, you’re calling for imposing equality of outcomes across our institutions and culture. That’s an entirely different ideology, with different assumptions about how society operates, different aims, and different methods of changing society.

It’s fine to subscribe to this progressive equity movement (or whatever you want to call it). But it’s a break from the rights movements of the 20th century, and it’s fundamentally at odds with many liberal values. And those values are not held only (or even mainly) by the privileged. Most minorities do not support institutional equality of outcome. Two-thirds of Black Americans say the only thing that should factor into college admissions is grades. Asian-Americans are launching lawsuits against institutions that practice affirmative action because they’re usually on the losing end of quotas. And despite a big advantage in money and campaigning behind it, Proposition 16 in California (a minority-majority state) failed.

The progressive equity program is not popular. It’s a movement mainly championed by educated, upper-middle-class white people (unsurprising given its roots in academia).

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

People who already enjoy the luxuries of being part of the dominant culture.

This kind of rhetoric is spectacularly wrong-headed. You’re never going to convince a dude who unloads Sobey’s trucks that he enjoys the luxuries of being part of the dominant culture. Actors, HR professionals, and sociology professors calling people who have high school educations and work ####ty jobs to reflect on their privilege and feel guilt about their culture is among the most bewildering own goals by the political left in modern times. You couldn’t come up with a more effective way to drive the working class into the arms of the populist right if you tried.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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).

We don’t need identity politics or equity ideology to combat people shooting up drag shows or vandalizing Pride events. Those are illegal activities, regardless of who is carrying out the actions and who they’re targeting. As for protests, as long as they’re on public property, and aren’t threatening anyone or committing hate crimes, it’s one of the prices we play to live in a liberal society. It sucks sometimes. But it’s preferable to authorities picking sides on contentious issues and shutting down speech they don’t like. Because any tool you give authorities to control speech is guaranteed to be used against you when your opponents get into power.

I get that some people think treating everyone the same isn’t enough (cue the cartoon of the kids standing on different sized boxes to see over a fence). But it’s better than the alternative. It’s better than legitimizing race, gender, and sexual orientation as our most important civic identities.

[rubecube]

And Cliff's off with his ahistoricisms again. Can't wait for someone to come by and soundly debunk him, followed by him disappearing, and then reappearing to derail another thread about real inequalities with his nonsense.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

And Cliff's off with his ahistoricisms again. Can't wait for someone to come by and soundly debunk him, followed by him disappearing, and then reappearing to derail another thread about real inequalities with his nonsense.

You raised a problem. The thread drifted (as they do). Maybe if you explained what real, tangible measures you’re advocating for, and how to achieve them, we can move beyond abstract ideals.

I engaged with the only specific, real-world content in Pepsi’s post here:

We don’t need identity politics or equity ideology to combat people shooting up drag shows or vandalizing Pride events. Those are illegal activities, regardless of who is carrying out the actions and who they’re targeting. As for protests, as long as they’re on public property, and aren’t threatening anyone or committing hate crimes, it’s one of the prices we play to live in a liberal society. It sucks sometimes. But it’s preferable to authorities picking sides on contentious issues and shutting down speech they don’t like. Because any tool you give authorities to control speech is guaranteed to be used against you when your opponents get into power.

You could address it. Or you could just make snarky quips. Your call.

[Ryan Coke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

And Cliff's off with his ahistoricisms again. Can't wait for someone to come by and soundly debunk him, followed by him disappearing, and then reappearing to derail another thread about real inequalities with his nonsense.

Cliff has a brain and thoughts, then there is you and Pepsi free that are so far down the hole of your narrow world view to be able to even contemplate a big picture.

The idea that differing views is a net positive is lost on those that choose identity politics as their path backward.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Rights and freedoms are easy to identify. Opportunities are far more difficult.

True. BUT! Imagine how much less difficult it would be if you put any effort into asking LGBTQ folks what those opportunities are. You'd probably be surprised how simple and benign a lot of them are. But, I get it, that's a lot of effort.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

You have it completely backwards. For most of the last century, it was liberal universalism that drove progress in Canada. The idea that people should not be treated differently by law and by our institutions due to their sex, religion, or race. We changed legislation and reformed institutions. We saw massive gains in women working and going to college, in minorities pursuing higher education and engaging in culture and media, in striking discrimination against homosexuality from our laws. All of those gains were made by universalism - treating everyone the same, instead of treating them different like we did in the bad old days.

I have "you don't have to wait for society to shift from identity politics to 'universalism' before you do something" backwards? You're saying we do have to wait? Or it's already here, and you're just not doing anything anyway?

Three cheers for universalism anyhow. Now go do something meaningful with that knowledge that actually helps someone.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

What actions do you think liberal-minded people in Canada should be taking today that they aren’t?

Spend less time using LGBTQ topics as an opportunity for online rants about identity politics, the political left, or whatever else, and (if online rants are as much as we can ask) use that time to engage honestly with the issues laid out before you. If we can ask any more, direct that energy to politicians, leaders, communities, or anyone else where a positive, accepting, universalism-inspired influence will make an actual difference.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Presumably, you’re calling for imposing equality of outcomes across our institutions and culture. That’s an entirely different ideology, with different assumptions about how society operates, different aims, and different methods of changing society.

I'm not presumably calling for anything. I'm rejecting the idea that people who are lacking rights, freedoms, or opportunities should just "wait their turn." I'm also rejecting the idea that people should respond to pushback for those things with "well, we didn't wait our turn, so it's our fault really." I feel like if you bothered to read it, that would have been fairly obvious, but I'm guessing you were just trying to stuff in this next point:

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It’s fine to subscribe to this progressive equity movement (or whatever you want to call it). But it’s a break from the rights movements of the 20th century, and it’s fundamentally at odds with many liberal values. And those values are not held only (or even mainly) by the privileged. Most minorities do not support institutional equality of outcome. Two-thirds of Black Americans say the only thing that should factor into college admissions is grades. Asian-Americans are launching lawsuits against institutions that practice affirmative action because they’re usually on the losing end of quotas. And despite a big advantage in money and campaigning behind it, Proposition 16 in California (a minority-majority state) failed.

Cool. Nothing to do with what I'm talking about, but you got to talk about affirmative action, so... cool.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The progressive equity program is not popular. It’s a movement mainly championed by educated, upper-middle-class white people (unsurprising given its roots in academia).

Also cool. Irrelevant, but cool.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This kind of rhetoric is spectacularly wrong-headed. You’re never going to convince a dude who unloads Sobey’s trucks that he enjoys the luxuries of being part of the dominant culture. Actors, HR professionals, and sociology professors calling people who have high school educations and work ####ty jobs to reflect on their privilege and feel guilt about their culture is among the most bewildering own goals by the political left in modern times. You couldn’t come up with a more effective way to drive the working class into the arms of the populist right if you tried.

Yes, it was wrong-headed of me to blithely use the term "luxury" about things that are really anything-but, knowing you specifically would latch onto the term to proceed to rant about the political left instead of attempting to engage with the sentiment with any honesty whatsoever.

First, I would like to apologise for referring to more recent gains in the areas of adoption, blood donations, and spousal rights across some of the more liberal democracies out there, along with yet-realised gains like donating sperm, reading books to children without people hating you, or just casually being out and about without worry as "luxuries." Jack off in an extra jar for me Cliff, it's a luxury after all.

Second, I would like to apologise to the Sobey's guy you made up instead of bothering to exercise empathy for any actual real person. I did not mean to call his life luxurious, and I'm sorry he's now alt-right because of it. Apologies, Sobey's guy, please come back.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

We don’t need identity politics or equity ideology to combat people shooting up drag shows or vandalizing Pride events. Those are illegal activities, regardless of who is carrying out the actions and who they’re targeting. As for protests, as long as they’re on public property, and aren’t threatening anyone or committing hate crimes, it’s one of the prices we play to live in a liberal society. It sucks sometimes. But it’s preferable to authorities picking sides on contentious issues and shutting down speech they don’t like. Because any tool you give authorities to control speech is guaranteed to be used against you when your opponents get into power.

Sometimes, it's OK to read about the struggles some groups are actively facing and just... I don't know... listen? Internalize? Think, learn, gain perspective, etc.? But thank you for giving permission for people to believe it "sucks sometimes" while also reminding us that it is, in fact, illegal to shoot people and bad to control speech. This is important work.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I get that some people think treating everyone the same isn’t enough (cue the cartoon of the kids standing on different sized boxes to see over a fence). But it’s better than the alternative. It’s better than legitimizing race, gender, and sexual orientation as our most important civic identities.

How you read a post outlining the desire to be treated the same as everyone else and came to this conclusion, I honestly do not know. It would be beyond the pale for almost anyone else. But hey, this was always more about what you wanted to say than what you were responding to, right?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Cliff has a brain and thoughts, then there is you and Pepsi free that are so far down the hole of your narrow world view to be able to even contemplate a big picture.

The idea that differing views is a net positive is lost on those that choose identity politics as their path backward.

Perhaps you can contribute something interesting regarding the topic of "the anti-LGBTQ+ movement", brain and thoughts man.

How expansive is your world view?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I'm not presumably calling for anything. I'm rejecting the idea that people who are lacking rights, freedoms, or opportunities should just "wait their turn."

I haven’t said anything about anyone waiting their turn. What specific rights and freedoms?

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

…along with yet-realised gains like donating sperm,

A measure put in place by health authorities out of concerns for HIV transmission. It sounds like there may be justification for removing the ban today. But it’s not something that was put in place out of bigotry. Anymore than the ban on anyone who was in the UK during mad cow crisis giving blood is motivated by bigotry.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

reading books to children without people hating you,

Nobody has a right not be hated. We have a right not be assaulted or subject to hate speech. But you can’t control how other people feel about you. Neither can Jews or Catholics or Mormons. Some people suck.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sometimes, it's OK to read about the struggles some groups are actively facing and just... I don't know... listen? Internalize? Think, learn, gain perspective, etc.?

Good advice. But if it’s compassion and empathy we’re trying to foster, it’ll be most effective coming from people who don’t routinely express hatred towards groups themselves. We’re not going to hate our way to a better world.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Nobody has a right not be hated. We have a right not be assaulted or subject to hate speech. But you can’t control how other people feel about you. Neither can Jews or Catholics or Mormons. Some people suck.

I’m trying to think of something funnier than the guy who whines about benign personal attacks more than any other poster on the board trotting out generic, “turn the other cheek” style clichés in response to people who find themselves the subject of hate-fueled protests because they A) exist and B) happened to volunteer to read stories to children.

But hey, you’re right, it’s not a right, even though nobody said it was, it’s important to make clear. Just one of those “opportunities” that are abstract and unknowable. But we need to make clear that volunteering at the library without people protesting you is also NOT a luxury, because we don’t want to make the Sobey’s guy we invented any more alt-right than he already is.

[The Fonz]

Can we use this thread to just try and get a better understanding of things? Hopefully it’s not too far gone.

I’ve got one of those questions where at this point, I’m too embarrassed to ask. What is the need for both ‘Lesbian’ and ‘Gay’ to be in the acronym? Doesn’t ‘Lesbian’ just refer to a gay female?

Don’t shoot me

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Can we use this thread to just try and get a better understanding of things? Hopefully it’s not too far gone.

I’ve got one of those questions where at this point, I’m too embarrassed to ask. What is the need for both ‘Lesbian’ and ‘Gay’ to be in the acronym? Doesn’t ‘Lesbian’ just refer to a gay female?

Don’t shoot me

It can, but it’s used mostly to refer to men, so adding lesbian is more inclusive.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

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.

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.

Boom, nailed it.

[DoubleF]

Err... sorta to steer this back towards the topic of tracking... I tried to do a quick understanding/crash course of worldwide anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment. Because I don't know much about it and the thread was really hard to follow on occasion.

Was this information for a basic understanding on worldwide anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment on the right track? (Please though, not debate about stances) I'm just aiming at going through objective information based on the topic of anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment to learn more. I also just want to follow the "Miniskirt rule". Short enough to be interesting, long enough to cover everything. There's so much going on that I have no clue how to orient myself to understand this topic. Some of what I knew felt like it was incorrect while reading this topic so I wanted to investigate.

Unfortunately, I don't know what I don't know in this topic. Again though, just looking for comments about gleaning of objective information on the topic. I'm not interested making any commentary on a stance.


I started here (and forgive my reliance on Wiki):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_r...itory#See_also

I did this to get an idea where countries are like at a general level LGBTQ+ rights. First thought, "Holy, there's a lot more X than checkmarks than I thought there would be in this day and age." Then I was surprised to see China had decriminalized homosexuality almost half a decade earlier than the USA (nationwide). The USA decriminalized homosexuality nationwide in 2003 which was 20 years ago. Canada decriminalized it in 1969. I didn't expect that huge of a gap.

It also mentioned that as of 2023, the top 3 nations for safety for LGBT were Canada, Sweden and the Netherlands. Nordic countries, Uruguay, Canada, Benelux countries, Spain, Andorra and Malta best for LGBT rights.

This was throwing me off because some of the comments were basically making me believe that Canada was average and pedestrian at best for LGBTQ+ safety and rights. I don't know if that was because the thread started off with a post of Russia doing anti-LGBTQ+ things and other comments kinda mashed different countries together, or if there was a different metric being discussed and Canada indeed sucks for LGBTQ+ in those regards.

Then I went here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societ..._homosexuality

Basically going from the legal rights of LGBTQ+ populations vs the country attitudes. A few things stuck out to me.

I get that polls have margins of error and aren't always completely indicative to the accuracy of an entire country's population. But if I looked at the percentages of the 2019 PEW global attitude project numbers and compared them to the 2023 PEW global attitude project numbers (if available), almost all countries across the board had a decrease in the LGBTQ+ should be accepted number and an increase in abstain or should not be accepted.

What happened during the pandemic that would cause large enough populations to change their stance across the board in multiple countries? With everyone cooped up doing their own thing one path for perception should be everyone doing their own thing? Or... maybe people blamed others for themselves being in lockdown and thus intolerance in general increased across the board? Could this not just for LGBTQ+ attitudes, but many others? (ie: Masking, vaccination etc.). Obviously it is still a serious attitude that affects all LGBTQ+ I do not downplay that. I just wonder if the LGBTQ+ intolerance is a part of a bigger general intolerance overall?

I looked at the colored map at the top. Canada and quite a few other countries aren't just colored for acceptance but colored in a darker hue for a high level of acceptance of LGBTQ+.

Again a little different than some of the comments in this thread, but again, I'm not certain that those comments are using the same metric as this page, so I hesitate to believe they should be directly compared.

Then on a hunch, I went here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions_by_country

I did this to compare the map of the previous page to the religion map of this page. Many of the countries on the previous map showing acceptance for LGBTQ+ were colored as one of the dominant two religions. Many of the countries on the previous map showing intolerance for LGBTQ+ were colored as the second of the two dominant religions.

So this perhaps means that religion does indeed sow some of the seeds towards LGBTQ+ attitudes.... or perhaps it's culture? So I looked at the maps at countries that are not part of the two dominant religions. Vast majority no data, but of those with data, it was seemingly almost evenly split between the two sides of the spectrum of acceptance and intolerance (ie: India and Japan). Inconclusive.


The strangest thing I noticed in new light were some of the comments I've read. The comments are that the LGBTQ+ population is a vocal minority... which I guess is true from a "who people normally sleep with" standpoint. But from a societal acceptance POV in Canada and USA, those that oppose LGBTQ+ acceptance (ie: the anti-LGBTQ+) are objectively the minority. But even those defending LGBTQ+ are conversing in a way that seems like they actually believe that they are defending a minority stance. This is very strange because this isn't supposed to be true in Canada. According the data, this anti-LGBTQ+ majority sentiment is true in countries like Ukraine, Russia, Indonesia and others... this is certainly true, but this is not completely true from a Canada and USA perspective. Why is the verbiage used so commonly like this?

Anything information wise I should consider spending another 10-15 minutes on or just abandon the whole thing because it's on the wrong track?

My apologies if I've basically just dumped drivel into this thread.

[Yeah_Baby]

I think partially our perception of affirming folks, vs folks who object the existence of queer people in Canada is likely skewed living in Alberta. I'd suspect we're an outlier that bucks some of the national trends.