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.
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.
I mean, both can be true. Reminds me of an “All lives matter” type argument.
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:
No, this simply isn’t true. Most schools just teach acceptance, nothing to do with politics or ideologies.
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.
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”.
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.
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 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?
The only reason those events were in the news (at least to my knowledge), was that people were protesting them.
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.
There’s sexual connotations with drag?
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.
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.
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!
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.
You are not listening to me. It doesn’t affect “day to day / their kids”. It is not being forced on anyone.
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!
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.
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.
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 seem to be just talking in circles so I’m going to stop engaging.