2SLGBTQQIA+

Serryah

Senate Member
Dec 3, 2008
7,395
1,483
113
New Brunswick
Barbara Kay: How StatsCan is contradicting its own data on trans Canadians (msn.com)
View attachment 15848
In an effort to raise awareness about Canada’s many diverse groups, Statistics Canada conceived the Disaggregated Data Action Plan, an infographic series whose purpose is to provide “brief, easily understood information about concepts and terms related to diversity and inclusion.”
To mark Gender Equality Week (Sept 18-24), the Centre for Gender, Diversity and Inclusion Statistics (CGDIS) released the first infographic a series under that rubric titled “ Understanding who we are: Sex at birth and gender of people in Canada .”

In it we learn that, for the first time, the Census conducted in May, 2021 was based on new statistical standards for sex at birth and gender of the person. Before 2021, “sex” did not include “at birth,” and gender did not have its own statistical standard. As well, before 2021, the classification of gender did not distinguish between men, women and non-binary people, or the distinction between cisgender, transgender and non-binary people.

Given the extraordinary attention trans-identified people receive in the media and in school curricula, one could be forgiven for assuming they are as numerous as, say, gays and lesbians, estimated by StatsCan at one million Canadians aged 15 and older in 2018, or four per cent of the population. The actual figures, nugatory by comparison, may therefore come as a surprise to many Canadians.
CGDIS estimates the total number of “transgender” or “non-binary” Canadians to be 100,815, or 0.33 per cent of Canadians aged 15 or older. Of that total: 27,905 (27.68 per cent) are transgender men; 31,555 (31.30 per cent) are transgender women; and 41,355 (41.02 per cent) people who do not identify as male or female (“non-binary people”). A full 99.66 per cent of the population, CGDIS reports, is “cisgender,” defined as “people whose gender corresponds to their sex assigned at birth.”

Vocabulary and definitions employed in official reports should be characterized by clarity and precision. This report bears the imprimatur of StatsCanada, an agency that — we would hope — is scrupulously disinterested ideologically. The language of this report should be such that all Canadians come away with a common understanding of what they have read. It is therefore troubling to see language that does not encourage understanding at all, let alone a common one, because the tropes employed are more concerned with promoting a belief system than with providing elucidation.

For example, the word “cisgender.” “Cis” is an invented modifier that means nothing to the average Canadian. When almost 100 per cent of humanity — for there is no reason to think Canada’s figures in this regard are unusual — is mentally unconflicted regarding their sex, then we are, simply, “the norm,” and norms do not require modification.

That seemingly anodyne modifier, cis, is an importation from queer theory , which is devoted to the overthrow of “normalcy.” Cis is code for a belief system in which heterosexual people are presumed to have privilege over trans people. The word “cisheterosexuality” is attached to oppression of transgender and non-binary people. In this way they are encouraged to understand the concept of a gender norm in a pejorative light.

For another example, the report describes sex as “a person’s reproductive system and other physical characteristics,” which are “assigned at birth.” This trope is also a marker of radical gender theory. Sex is not “assigned” at birth. Sex is “observed” at birth. Gender theorists, who want us to understand both sex and gender as fluid, conceived the phrase “assigned at birth” to encourage understanding of both sex and gender as equally fluid. Until just a minute ago, all evolutionary biologists agreed that sex is fixed. Now those who still insist on this fact are likely to be cancelled or voluntarily withdraw from academia before it comes to that.

Gender is here defined as “an individual’s personal and social identity as a man, woman or non-binary person.” That makes sense. But CGDIS then goes on to define “non-binary” people in a way that does not make sense. In the graphic, they are described as those “who are not exclusively a man or a woman.” (In their written description, they are “People whose gender are not exclusively a man or a woman (sic).”)

Here again is the sloppy thinking, and the casual conflation of sex with gender, that characterizes gender theory, but should not characterize objective data collection. One cannot “be” neither man nor woman, as the verb “are” asserts, because we are ineluctably tethered to our sexed bodies. One can only “feel” neither (stereotypically) masculine nor feminine, a distinction with a huge difference CGDIS willfully eschews. Disagree if you like, but again: this should not be a controversial belief.

It is deeply concerning that StatsCan should lend its authority to the assertive rather than fact-based vocabulary in this infographic.

StatsCan is not alone, of course. Virtually all our elite institutions have been similarly captured by radical gender theory. Complicity in the corridors of power has led to their entrenchment in human rights codes. Thence to policies that marginalize women’s security, fairness and dignity rights in their sex-protected spaces on the grounds that “feelings” have the power to defy biological reality. And ultimately to the erasure of sex as a viable human category.

Now my own words. Interestingly enough, the stats are pretty much the same as they were 20 years when surveys indicated that 4-5% of North Americans identified as gay or lesbian with only a fraction of a percent identifying as trans.

FWIW, I absolutely despise the use of "Cis", so much so I refuse to use it in any situation and if someone says it to me I've asked them NOT to use it when talking to me.

I do understand the reason for it, I just don't think it's necessary or needed. "Heterosexual" fits perfectly well enough.

The rest of this... meh, bitching because language and science has evolved and StatsCan is trying to get better defined numbers of people for whatever they need those numbers for.
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
2,625
1,642
113
The rest of this... meh, bitching because language and science has evolved and StatsCan is trying to get better defined numbers of people for whatever they need those numbers for.

"Evolution" is a natural process. Things change naturally over time. That's not what's happening here. Science and language is being manipulated to fit an agenda. That's not the same thing. And pretending it is would be pretty disingenuous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
18,991
4,686
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
FWIW, I absolutely despise the use of "Cis", so much so I refuse to use it in any situation and if someone says it to me I've asked them NOT to use it when talking to me.

I do understand the reason for it, I just don't think it's necessary or needed. "Heterosexual" fits perfectly well enough.

The rest of this... meh, bitching because language and science has evolved and StatsCan is trying to get better defined numbers of people for whatever they need those numbers for.
I can honestly say that nobody has ever called me “Cis” or “Cis-anything” & I’ve never been called Heterosexual though I’ve used the term online to describe myself.

I can mentally picture someone calling the The Champ “Cis” & he’d say, “Pardon…?”
 

Serryah

Senate Member
Dec 3, 2008
7,395
1,483
113
New Brunswick
I can honestly say that nobody has ever called me “Cis” or “Cis-anything” & I’ve never been called Heterosexual though I’ve used the term online to describe myself.

I can mentally picture someone calling the The Champ “Cis” & he’d say, “Pardon…?”

Thankfully it hasn't happened more than a couple of times, and not in person.

Never heard of this guy though, will listen.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
103,529
8,198
113
Low Earth Orbit
I can honestly say that nobody has ever called me “Cis” or “Cis-anything” & I’ve never been called Heterosexual though I’ve used the term online to describe myself.

I can mentally picture someone calling the The Champ “Cis” & he’d say, “Pardon…?”
The original Champ was a skit by Maclean & Maclean. That I liked, this radio rip off was meh.

 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
18,991
4,686
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Buddy (Buddette) might be getting set up for his lawsuit & a Human Rights Tribunal.

“This is how far down the rabbit hole we have gone, highly-educated bureaucrats charged with educating your children are defending this style of dress as a human rights issue.”

The Amazon super-boobs purchase might payback in spades.

Parties reported 94 per cent satisfaction. 94% where Unlike a court of law where you are innocent until proven guilty it’s the reverse and the accused are guilty until proven innocent….& at a 94% satisfaction rate for the complainants….if you’re accused you’re pretty much screwed and the complainant gets paid.

Blah blah blah….Cha-Ching!!

It comes off more as a stunt, a dare to the employer…
Too early in the morning still. I had cited a legal brief out of Manitoba that’s about 12 feet long but the punchline was that causes 80 - 84….with a $50000 payout through a human rights tribunal… and then I accidentally erased it…

Given the extraordinary attention trans-identified people receive in the media and in school curricula, one could be forgiven for assuming they are as numerous as, say, gays and lesbians, estimated by StatsCan at one million Canadians aged 15 and older in 2018, or four per cent of the population. The actual figures, nugatory by comparison, may therefore come as a surprise to many Canadians.
CGDIS estimates the total number of “transgender” or “non-binary” Canadians to be 100,815, or 0.33 per cent of Canadians aged 15 or older. Of that total: 27,905 (27.68 per cent) are transgender men; 31,555 (31.30 per cent) are transgender women; and 41,355 (41.02 per cent) people who do not identify as male or female (“non-binary people”). A full 99.66 per cent of the population, CGDIS reports, is “cisgender,” defined as “people whose gender corresponds to their sex assigned at birth.”
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
2,625
1,642
113
Too early in the morning still. I had cited a legal brief out of Manitoba that’s about 12 feet long but the punchline was that causes 80 - 84….with a $50000 payout through a human rights tribunal… and then I accidentally erased it…
I hate that. I feel your pain :)

To me it's not a question of what percent of the population is affected, it's about reasonable accommodation. And this kind of came up in the states when personal pronouns were the rage and someone asked a judge "What if my personal pronoun is "my lord and master". Everyone has to refer to me as 'my lord and master". A judge said "Well, i think reasonable people would conclude that the person wasn't being genuine and there's no need for accomodation under the law" or words to that effect.

And it seems to me that this is clearly the case here.
 

Serryah

Senate Member
Dec 3, 2008
7,395
1,483
113
New Brunswick
Too early in the morning still. I had cited a legal brief out of Manitoba that’s about 12 feet long but the punchline was that causes 80 - 84….with a $50000 payout through a human rights tribunal… and then I accidentally erased it…




Here I thought Maher would be "Too liberal" for most people here and I expected freak outs. Apparently O Bill is getting more right in his age?

Anyway.

2 minutes in and Bill has as usual missed a whole bunch of points.

The one I want to focus on is the point he made at 1:38 to 2:15 or so. The "who is affected by Abortion".

1. I don't know why women were left off the list. The source:
It says disproportionately. While I do wonder, again, why women are left off the list, I am thinking it's because it's implied that women would be top, and then broken down further.

2. When it comes to the GLBTQIA community, I do see where the abortion issue could be a problem. I mean, just because lesbians prefer women, doesn't mean they aren't raped by men.

As a right overall, it should concern everyone, tbh. And now that we've had the "Dobs" decision around for a while, we're seeing just what harm is being done to ANYONE who is pregnant regardless.

I didn't bother with the rest because I never did like Maher overmuch, though he does sometimes have good points (not just Liberal either). But lately he's been more old man "Do things like they were back in the day, damnit!" than I care for.
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
2,625
1,642
113
I didn't bother with the rest because I never did like Maher overmuch, though he does sometimes have good points (not just Liberal either). But lately he's been more old man "Do things like they were back in the day, damnit!" than I care for.
We are well aware of your intolerance of any opinion other than your own and your tendency to refuse to listen to them and make bigoted "old man" statements. However to address your points -

"women" weren't added even tho it would seem like a natural because they're not currently high on the intersectional hierarchy.

The LGBTQ angle makes NO sense period. Lesbians might get raped and get pregnant, but how would gays? And why would it affect them 'disproportionately'? Surely lesbian women don't get raped and pregnant at significantly higher rates than straight women. Considering the prevelance of date rape i rather doubt they're even AS high.

As to it being a right - it comes down to a very simple thing. Either the fetus is human being or it isn't. At some point it will go from NOT being one to being one. After it does then ITS human rights attach and if you think other rights are important you must agree that the right to life is top of the food chain when it comes to human rights. You have the right not to get your head smashed in by a doctor.

So that's what the debate comes down to. When you say "rights" should be important to everyone - that's true. But you can't just ignore some critical rights and pretend to be "righteous" about others.

That's the discussion that people have to have, and they'll do it state by state now i guess. IF it is held that at some point before birth that a fetus becomes a human, at that moment whenever it is then that "human" has rights and that's the end of that discussion. And parents have ALWAYS had a duty of care and provision of the necessaries of life for their children.

The debate about when a human being becomes a human being is a challenging one, but none of the rest of that is.
 

Taxslave2

Electoral Member
Aug 13, 2022
985
499
63
I’m going to go with the pronouns of “Doctor” & “Captain” I’m guessing if it ever becomes normal that people have to throw out pronouns to be addressed by.
That would be the pronoun for a doctor in the army. I think they are switched around though.
 

Serryah

Senate Member
Dec 3, 2008
7,395
1,483
113
New Brunswick

"“Many students have supporting parents, and they can go home to supportive homes, but there’s also students where school is their safe place. And, if we take that away from them, by taking away their privacy, that can really harm them,” said Banner.


Youngkin’s proposed changes have focused on parents having more control over gender issues discussed with their children."


Good on the students sticking with their friends who may be in danger if they are 'outed' to parents who don't give a flying fig about them if they're anything but their ideas of 'male/female'.

Oh, and just in case...


"Banner doesn’t totally disagree with Youngkin on parents being in the loop. “Yes, I agree that parents do need to know what’s happening in their [children’s] schools,” they said, “but transgender teens, non-binary teens, other people of the queer community, they really need to have that safety.”


Starting high school is a challenge for all students, including transgender ones, Banner said. “I was mainly trying to figure out what was going on, and figuring out high school, figuring out myself, and finding friends.”


Asked if there might be a middle ground between the current policies and Youngkin’s new proposals, Banner said, “There probably could be.”


“We need to be able to keep that privacy, because then people can figure themselves out, and when they feel safe, they can go and talk to their parents,” they said.


“It’s really important that we have that freedom, and yes, there could probably be some sort of middle area, but we don’t quite know what that would be yet.”"

It's a balance the kids and parents have to figure out, where parents get to be involved and informed, but kids are safe.

Hopefully suggestions - legitimate ones - are made and a middle ground can be found.