Liberal Minority Government 2021 - ????

[Halifax Tar]

I think a lot of people are underestimating how many people are not supportive of so called ‘trans rights’ when it comes to their kids. The recent backlash has only just started because people are now realizing how far many of these policies have gone. Specifically because they have done all these policy changes in secret.

For example, I don’t believe a child can be transgender or gay. Until they hit puberty I don’t think they really can understand the concept of sexuality and even then it takes years of painful teenage growth to come to any sort of understanding.

There have been plenty of studies proving that if you leave a child alone until they are done puberty the vast majority will be fine long term. This giving children puberty blockers and ‘accommodating’ concepts they physically cannot comprehend makes no sense and is tantamount to child abuse in my opinion.

I am not even extreme in my viewpoint, I just think that they should keep the transgender and gay ideology push out of the schools and away from the ever decreasing age they deem it appropriate to push it upon them. Just as I don’t agree with pushing religion, fascism, communism, etc. on them. Teach them they have to tolerate each other and call it a day.

If your a adult and want to be that way, whatever more the power to you, it doesn’t effect me none. But children are impressionable, they do not have the cognitive ability to understand or fight theses ideas rather they just parrot what they have been told.

Calling someone far right because they don’t agree with giving a child life altering drugs/surgeries/tricking them into believing they are something they are not is asinine. Long term we will see lots of harmed youth turn into harmed adults who didn’t understand what they were doing, there are already stories coming out of the UK on this. Its almost like children lack the ability and comprehension to consent.

I watched an interesting video yesterday. A 28 year old woman wanted her tubes tied as she didn't want kids. The doctors told her she was too young and wanted her to wait.

Then she compared it to children getting gender reassignment surgery.

Was an interesting take that a 28 year old woman cant get her tubes tied but a child can have gender reassignment surgery.

Definitely made you think.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Another fine example of masking issues by mixing together different things and representing them as one thing.

1. People who want to dress and live as whatever gender they please ought be able to do so without any infringement of rights.

2. Children who express ambiguity/confusion over gender identity ought to be nudged in the direction of mangling their genitals and altering their body chemistry while they are still growing.

A person who disagrees with (1) might be characterized as "anti-trans". But a person who disagrees with (2) is humane and has common sense.

Uncontrolled experimentation on children is vile.

 

[brihard]

This was only a few days before Johnston resigned. IMO, very bad form and was basically the former GG saying he works for Trudeau not Canadians:

The former governor general released a statement following the vote on a motion brought forward by the NDP, which the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois supported while the Liberals stood opposed. It passed 174 to 150.

It called on Johnston... to "step aside from his role."

"I deeply respect the right of the House of Commons to express its opinion about my work going forward, but my mandate comes the government. I have a duty to pursue that work until my mandate is completed."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/house-passes-motion-david-johnston-step-down-1.6861009

I guess after some self reflection he thought the will of parliament is perhaps a bigger deal than the will of Trudeau.

Uh, that’s simply the well established distinction between the legislative and executive branches. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, nor with someone recognizing which branch of our system has given them a mandate. While he did eventually step down due to political pressure, his answer on that issue was entirely correct given how our system of government divides powers. The fact that his role was inherently a ‘no win’ doesn’t make his acknowledgment of where his mandate did - and didn’t - come from incorrect or inappropriate.

The Liberals do not hold a majority of seats. If the opposition parties are truly vexed by the actions of the executive branch, they have the ability to defeat the government in a confidence motion and force an election. There are many reasons the executive branch needs to be able to govern and otherwise act without every action being directly subject to the desires of Parliament.

I bet if Trudeau had said “ok, we’ll table a motion in Parliament about Johnston’s appointment, and it’ll be a confidence matter”, we would have seen him retained on the strength of supporting NDP votes.

 

[YZT580]

Another fine example of masking issues by mixing together different things and representing them as one thing.

1. People who want to dress and live as whatever gender they please ought be able to do so without any infringement of rights.

2. Children who express ambiguity/confusion over gender identity ought to be nudged in the direction of mangling their genitals and altering their body chemistry while they are still growing.

A person who disagrees with (1) might be characterized as "anti-trans". But a person who disagrees with (2) is humane and has common sense.

Uncontrolled experimentation on children is vile.

Back in the 70,s the gay thing was just coming to the fore with bath houses being raided and the courts being required to address the issue. At that time a book came out that, if I remember correctly, was banned as being pornographic: its title was Loving men loving boys loving men and it was all about the methodology to employ to seduce young boys into homosexuality. What we are seeing today is that book being played out in real life and in a big way and we are letting it happen. Being gay is not genetic it is a life-style choice with only a few exceptions. Once you have had a hysterectomy or your nuts cut off there is no turning back and there are too many examples out there of people saying I made a mistake to make light of the issue and allow the board of education to have a say in the bringing up of our children. They have been wrong too many times to permit them the opportunity to experiment.

 

[brihard]

Back in the 70,s the gay thing was just coming to the fore with bath houses being raided and the courts being required to address the issue. At that time a book came out that, if I remember correctly, was banned as being pornographic: its title was Loving men loving boys loving men and it was all about the methodology to employ to seduce young boys into homosexuality. What we are seeing today is that book being played out in real life and in a big way and we are letting it happen. Being gay is not genetic it is a life-style choice with only a few exceptions. Once you have had a hysterectomy or your nuts cut off there is no turning back and there are too many examples out there of people saying I made a mistake to make light of the issue and allow the board of education to have a say in the bringing up of our children. They have been wrong too many times to permit them the opportunity to experiment.

Sorry, just to make very sure I’m understanding you’re claim correctly here- you’re asserting that being gay - homosexuality - is simply “a lifestyle choice”? That it’s an option most people who are homosexual willingly and consciously choose?

 

[YZT580]

Sorry, just to make very sure I’m understanding you’re claim correctly here- you’re asserting that being gay - homosexuality - is simply “a lifestyle choice”? That it’s an option most people who are homosexual willingly and consciously choose?

For the most part that is correct. Attributing it to lifestyle is far too simplistic a statement but it truly is what it boils down to. It can be a result of upbringing, seduction, a bad experience as a young girl or boy and hormonal imbalances during the teen years in particular when everything is kinda screwed up. Being the guy that is always picked last for the team can contribute as well. I am not using him as the ultimate authority but Jordan Peterson has done a fair bit of research on the topic and has writings and back up research to support this viewpoint and its readable. The one thing there isn't is a so-called gay gene. There are however people with a chromosome mismatch that causes the man in a woman's body or the opposite but those from what I have read are rare

 

[brihard]

OK, just checking. I’ve got nothing for this.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

My daughter came out as Trans to us last year at the age of 15.

We have been through psychological intake, counseling, her physician, and a bunch of other medical steps to start the process of her transition. She hasn't started HRT yet, as she has to wait for it to get signed off by a medical practitioner. She is not legally allowed to even investigate gender reassignment until she has reached the age of majority.

This is all with massive support from my spouse and I, our family, and yes, her school. For some of her peers across the country and around the world, they do not have the structures in place to guarantee safety or support if they choose to begin this transition.

There is a very good reason in some cases where a child would not want their parents to know they're gay or transitioning: cultural intolerance, religious intolerance, social stigma, you name it. Imagine being 15, finding out your school outed you to your parents, and now you're disowned and homeless.

As much as Trudeau is a polarizing asshat with "far right" being his go to for everything he doesn't understand... this policy is damaging to those who are 2SLGBTQ2IA+ and I could honestly see this face a Charter challenge (Section 2(b), 7, 15 are all coming to mind..).

I would implore all of you who seem to think the "Rainbow Mafia" is coming for seven year olds, to actually look into the societal prejudices and now legislative discriminations that people are facing in those groups. That is definitely not something people enter into arbitrarily because someone said "it's OK to be who you are."

 

[Quirky]

15. Wow. Let’s hope she doesn’t do something she will regret later on in life.

Our school system is f*cked.

 

[Pelorus]

I watched an interesting video yesterday. A 28 year old woman wanted her tubes tied as she didn't want kids. The doctors told her she was too young and wanted her to wait.

Then she compared it to children getting gender reassignment surgery.

Was an interesting take that a 28 year old woman cant get her tubes tied but a child can have gender reassignment surgery.

Definitely made you think.

From what I've seen (i.e., friends and internet anecdotes), reproductive health is one of the most significant areas of complaint that women have for gender discrimination in medicine. For example, as you've alluded to, a doctor refusing a tubal ligation procedure for a 20-something woman because "what if you want kids in the future?", or more egregious, US doctors refusing to perform the procedure without the consent of a husband (whether or not that person currently exists).

There's definitely room for respectful dialogue regarding what's appropriate for gender-affirming care for minors (although personally I typically take the position of ignorance and let the expert health care providers make the decisions that are best for their patients), but I don't think this is necessarily a useful comparison.

 

[Halifax Tar]

My daughter came out as Trans to us last year at the age of 15.

We have been through psychological intake, counseling, her physician, and a bunch of other medical steps to start the process of her transition. She hasn't started HRT yet, as she has to wait for it to get signed off by a medical practitioner. She is not legally allowed to even investigate gender reassignment until she has reached the age of majority.

This is all with massive support from my spouse and I, our family, and yes, her school. For some of her peers across the country and around the world, they do not have the structures in place to guarantee safety or support if they choose to begin this transition.

There is a very good reason in some cases where a child would not want their parents to know they're gay or transitioning: cultural intolerance, religious intolerance, social stigma, you name it. Imagine being 15, finding out your school outed you to your parents, and now you're disowned and homeless.

As much as Trudeau is a polarizing asshat with "far right" being his go to for everything he doesn't understand... this policy is damaging to those who are 2SLGBTQ2IA+ and I could honestly see this face a Charter challenge (Section 2(b), 7, 15 are all coming to mind..).

I would implore all of you who seem to think the "Rainbow Mafia" is coming for seven year olds, to actually look into the societal prejudices and now legislative discriminations that people are facing in those groups. That is definitely not something people enter into arbitrarily because someone said "it's OK to be who you are."

I have great empathy for anyone who feels they were born/assigned the wrong gender. I cant imagine how hard that must be to go through. And I think all available support and help should be provided.

Having said that the overt sexualization and behavior that I see at many pride events now means I will be keeping my child from it until I feel she is old enough.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Having said that the overt sexualization and behavior that I see at many pride events now means I will be keeping my child from it until I feel she is old enough.

That's your perogative as a parent. At least here in Kingston, our Pride organization has done a fantastic job of ensuring that the main pride events are family friendly. They hold the more adult themed events in the evening at licensed establishments for the very reason you state above.

I would offer though that overt sexualization of society is more of a risk consuming generic media than that which they'd see at a Pride parade. I saw raunchier things in an American Pie movie as a teenager than I have seen at a Pride parade.

 

[Halifax Tar]

That's your perogative as a parent. At least here in Kingston, our Pride organization has done a fantastic job of ensuring that the main pride events are family friendly. They hold the more adult themed events in the evening at licensed establishments for the very reason you state above.

I would offer though that overt sexualization of society is more of a risk consuming generic media than that which they'd see at a Pride parade. I saw raunchier things in an American Pie movie as a teenager than I have seen at a Pride parade.

I also don't take my daughter to nights out with the rugby lads. Some places just aren't for kids, and that metric should be left of up to individual parents decide. Live and let live so to speak.

As for the sexualization of society, if you can search my handle and sexualization. You will see I have grave concerns about that. And have been counter argued by other members as well.

 

[brihard]

I would offer though that overt sexualization of society is more of a risk consuming generic media than that which they'd see at a Pride parade. I saw raunchier things in an American Pie movie as a teenager than I have seen at a Pride parade.

“We’ll… just tell your mom we ate it.”

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I also don't take my daughter to nights out with the rugby lads. Some places just aren't for kids, and that metric should be left of up to individual parents decide. Live and let live so to speak.

I think we are in agreement here. Time, place, and context are all important factors.

That said, preaching hate and intolerance for any group under the guise of "protecting my kids" will never hold water in my books. Not saying that's your MO, speaking in generalities.

As for the sexualization of society, if you can search my handle and sexualization. You will see I have grave concerns about that. And have been counter argued by other members as well.

I know your position and have provided counterpoints on occasion as well.

I think we can agree that there is a lot out in the world that we need to help our kids navigate, and part of that is being able to provide context in a constructive manner. More important is providing an example to model.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think we are in agreement here. Time, place, and context are all important factors.

That said, preaching hate and intolerance for any group under the guise of "protecting my kids" will never hold water in my books. Not saying that's your MO, speaking in generalities.

I know your position and have provided counterpoints on occasion as well.

I think we can agree that there is a lot out in the world that we need to help our kids navigate, and part of that is being able to provide context in a constructive manner. More important is providing an example to model.

We agree on all points.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I would implore all of you who seem to think the "Rainbow Mafia" is coming for seven year olds, to actually look into the societal prejudices and now legislative discriminations that people are facing in those groups. That is definitely not something people enter into arbitrarily because someone said "it's OK to be who you are."

No, saying ‘its ok to be who you are’ isn’t the issue, its putting ideas into childrens heads and reinforcing those ideas through repetition.

There isn’t any time spent in school on all sorts of important topics which shall directly effect them as they grow up. No discussions on how rent works, no discussions on mortgages, credit cards, car purchases, barely any discussion on how our political system works, etc. but they do hammer in lots of pride stuff.

When I was going to school, it was right when the whole gay rights movement was really taking off in school. At that time it was LGB, none of the other letters yet. Basically what was being pushed then was its ok to be gay, bi, etc, and to tolerate others.

Now they have gone from seeking tolerance to actively attacking others with different opinions. Those whose views don’t match up with their ever changing definition of acceptable. If you have the audacity to question any of it you will be declared a homophobe/transphobe and attacked.

I feel sorry for your daughter because that isn’t a state I wish for anyone to be in. That being said everything I have read indicates a super majority odds if you just leave them alone by time they are finished puberty they will be comfortable in their body. Its not a guarantee, but there have been enough studies affirming that the best practice is basically to wait and see.

As to the school outing them, until the child is 18 or emancipated they are the responsibility of the parent. Denying a parent important information as to the wellbeing of their child based off ‘what ifs’ is wrong. ‘What if’ the child kills themselves because they didn’t get the treatment they need due to denying the parent the information they need to seek assistance for them? Especially for a mental illness which has a 32-50% suicide rate. If your child was doing heroin and the school found out do they have the right to keep that information from you?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Meanwhile, more proof that the folks who run 'Family Friendly' gay pride parades can make bad choices too

https://twitter.com/x/status/1665629530336432128

 

[QV]

Uh, that’s simply the well established distinction between the legislative and executive branches. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, nor with someone recognizing which branch of our system has given them a mandate. While he did eventually step down due to political pressure, his answer on that issue was entirely correct given how our system of government divides powers. The fact that his role was inherently a ‘no win’ doesn’t make his acknowledgment of where his mandate did - and didn’t - come from incorrect or inappropriate.

The Liberals do not hold a majority of seats. If the opposition parties are truly vexed by the actions of the executive branch, they have the ability to defeat the government in a confidence motion and force an election. There are many reasons the executive branch needs to be able to govern and otherwise act without every action being directly subject to the desires of Parliament.

I bet if Trudeau had said “ok, we’ll table a motion in Parliament about Johnston’s appointment, and it’ll be a confidence matter”, we would have seen him retained on the strength of supporting NDP votes.

What is correct and what is right are on occasion two different things.

Johnston recognized, belatedly, that following Trudeaus' mandate was worse for the country then following the will of parliament.

 

[TacticalTea]

From what I've seen (i.e., friends and internet anecdotes), reproductive health is one of the most significant areas of complaint that women have for gender discrimination in medicine. For example, as you've alluded to, a doctor refusing a tubal ligation procedure for a 20-something woman because "what if you want kids in the future?", or more egregious, US doctors refusing to perform the procedure without the consent of a husband (whether or not that person currently exists).

There's definitely room for respectful dialogue regarding what's appropriate for gender-affirming care for minors (although personally I typically take the position of ignorance and let the expert health care providers make the decisions that are best for their patients), but I don't think this is necessarily a useful comparison.

Speaking purely out of morality / concern for the public good, as I have no professional insight here:

Medical decisions have to be medically warranted.

If costs are collectively borne, as in private or public insurance, or single-payer universal healthcare, then doctors should indeed refuse to carry out procedures that cause harm to the patient (such as infertility) without a valid medical reason, whether it's for men, women, or children.

"Do no harm"

Similarly, you don't kill a patient just because they want you to. MAID requires a proper framework that leaves no room for error and is permissible only after careful consideration when it is truly the best path forward.

Consent should not be the end-all be-all for determining whether an action is right. People engage in self-destructive behaviour all the time. Just because they want to doesn't mean we should indulge them.

Now, if a patient wishes so strongly to be sterilized, then they can pay out of pocket at a private clinic, as they would for any other optional surgery.