[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Grey Fox]

Carney, and others would be leaders, should make sure they are candidates for the next partial election

There are different errors of Ignatieff but I think being in parliament for only 2 years prior to becoming leader was a big one for public perception of him. 

[Jacob]

I HATE HATE HATE this trend in politics - of ignoring what someone actually says, and instead attacking what people "on that side" are saying.  And this goes both ways.

In this case what he's being judged on what he actually is saying:

- That the exploding car was a terrorist attack, which it wasn't.
- That it's the journalists who are making him look bad, when it wasn't.
- That "radical gender ideology is being imposed on children" when it isn't.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah and you could slightly adjust it. I get GF's point - but, to Jake's point, not sure asset management is a great immediate background for someone planning a political run.

I think BB is engaging and wishful thinking. Ignatieff was unknown to Canadians outside of elite academic circles.  The conservative attack ads were very effective because nobody knew whether what they were saying was accurate or not.

Carny is well known. The conservatives won't be able to tell Canadians who he is from their perspective. Canadians already know who he is.

[crazy canuck]

Carney, and others would be leaders, should make sure they are candidates for the next partial election

There are different errors of Ignatieff but I think being in parliament for only 2 years prior to becoming leader was a big one for public perception of him. 

I think that's the case for people who come from relative obscurity. But it wasn't true for Harper who hadn't been an MP for many years and it's probably not going to be true for Carney.

[Jacob]

I HATE HATE HATE this trend in politics - of ignoring what someone actually says, and instead attacking what people "on that side" are saying.  And this goes both ways.

I have to be honest I tend to ignore any article that has "rooted in" in the title - at best you'll get some interesting analysis of discourse. And I feel like we're already overburdened with commentary on the discourse

Edit: I actually think it's possibly a dangerous sign - you look at Russia as an extreme example where everything is about de-code and explaining discourse for the real meaning underneath. It's not healthy, especially in a democracy.

1) Your quote makes it seem like you're attributing BB's words to me.

2) When people are taking to the streets in the name of fighting "radical gender ideology" (we had one protest n town just this weekend - using the same approach as the convoy sympathy protests we had during that time), when they're protesting at schools and doxxing teachers because they hate "radical gender ideology", when legislation is being passed to ensure trans kids don't get support - again in the name of fighting "radical gender ideology" - you think it's "not healthy in a democracy" to link those things to a politician who makes "fighting radical gender ideology" a speaking point?

Is this because the article used the term "rooted in"? Or is it because you're persuaded by BB's argument that Pierre Poillievre doesn't actually mean anything specific when he says he think we should "fight radical gender ideology" even though actual specific policy changes are being argued for by people using those exact terms.

This is not a question about whether someone is using the right terminology due to whatever implications, this is a matter of concerted attempts to make life more difficult for LGTBQ+ folks (with a specific focus on those who are trans) via specific policy initiatives in the provincial and municipal levels (or equivalent jursidictions elsewhere in the world).

[Barrister]

I HATE HATE HATE this trend in politics - of ignoring what someone actually says, and instead attacking what people "on that side" are saying.  And this goes both ways.

In this case what he's being judged on what he actually is saying:

- That the exploding car was a terrorist attack, which it wasn't.
- That it's the journalists who are making him look bad, when it wasn't.
- That "radical gender ideology is being imposed on children" when it isn't.

He said "there are media reports this is a terrorist attack.  Can you give us more information".  (Not exact words, but pretty close).

There were media reports.  Hate on Fox News all you want, but the news side is generally well respected (as opposed to the opinion side).  It was clear that the authorities WERE treating it as a terrorist attack until proven otherwise.

[Barrister]

I HATE HATE HATE this trend in politics - of ignoring what someone actually says, and instead attacking what people "on that side" are saying.  And this goes both ways.

I have to be honest I tend to ignore any article that has "rooted in" in the title - at best you'll get some interesting analysis of discourse. And I feel like we're already overburdened with commentary on the discourse

Edit: I actually think it's possibly a dangerous sign - you look at Russia as an extreme example where everything is about de-code and explaining discourse for the real meaning underneath. It's not healthy, especially in a democracy.

1) Your quote makes it seem like you're attributing BB's words to me.

2) When people are taking to the streets in the name of fighting "radical gender ideology" (we had one protest n town just this weekend - using the same approach as the convoy sympathy protests we had during that time), when they're protesting at schools and doxxing teachers because they hate "radical gender ideology", when legislation is being passed to ensure trans kids don't get support - again in the name of fighting "radical gender ideology" - you think it's "not healthy in a democracy" to link those things to a politician who makes "fighting radical gender ideology" a speaking point?

Is this because the article used the term "rooted in"? Or is it because you're persuaded by BB's argument that Pierre Poillievre doesn't actually mean anything specific when he says he think we should "fight radical gender ideology" even though actual specific policy changes are being argued for by people using those exact terms.

This is not a question about whether someone is using the right terminology due to whatever implications, this is a matter of concerted attempts to make life more difficult for LGTBQ+ folks (with a specific focus on those who are trans) via specific policy initiatives in the provincial and municipal levels (or equivalent jursidictions elsewhere in the world).

So I try not to wade into trans issues very much, because Sophie made it pretty clear she saw it as an attack on her.

But there's something really creepy and wrong going on out there when it comes to youth gender transition.

I wouldn't say that no youth should ever be allowed to transition, but numbers have absolutely skyrocketed over the last decade, in particular amongst female to male people.  There's a lot to suggest that puberty, in particular female puberty, can be difficult, but that many people who are transitioning would grow up to become lesbians once they accept their body.

I still find it shocking that the idea that kids should be allowed to transition, including medically, all without any input from their parents, is a position people seriously put forward.

Jacob, I think you would be one of the first ones to say that we should distinguish between the actions of some people (like the terrorists of Hamas) and the rightness of their cause (justice for Palestinians), so why you don't grant the same grace to those questioning "radical gender ideology" escapes me.  If there are people out there doxxing teachers that is wrong.

[crazy canuck]

Before you continue to post on this subject, and throw out lines that you are shocked people take seriously the proposition that "kids should be allowed to transition" without parental consent, you should to read some of the law that has developed in the last 4-5 years, including at the appellate level.  You will find that serious people of some intellect do in fact take all of this seriously.

You may not personally like it, but the fact is there is a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria.  Your approach and the approach of like minded people tends to ignore this fact.

The other fact is that for a number of circumstances medical care providers are able to assess whether a minor has capacity to give consent.  That is that they both understand the decision they are making and have the mental capacity to determine the risks and benefits.  But more to the point, the medical professional must also make the medical judgment that the treatment is in the best interests of their patient.

People on the right tend to waive all of this medical judgment away and make it sound like children are getting gender reassignment on demand.

Also, please keep in mind the fact that many trans youth are not in supportive families and their well being is at risk if disclosure is made to the abusive parent.

But even if you reject all of this, please stop making statements that these are things that kids will grow out of.  That is a view that is entirely rejected by the medical science.

[Jacob]

He said "there are media reports this is a terrorist attack.  Can you give us more information".  (Not exact words, but pretty close).

There were media reports.  Hate on Fox News all you want, but the news side is generally well respected (as opposed to the opinion side).  It was clear that the authorities WERE treating it as a terrorist attack until proven otherwise.

I honestly don't care that much about this - the thing, though, is that Poillievre is being judged on what he said and did in the whole course of events (mispoke about the nature of the event, attacked the media, acted defensively), not what people are reading into his words.

It's a minor thing and doesn't matter much in the big scheme of things, even if Poillievre's reaction made it bigger. It'll be forgotten soon.

[Barrister]

Before you continue to post on this subject, and throw out lines that you are shocked people take seriously the proposition that "kids should be allowed to transition" without parental consent, you should to read some of the law that has developed in the last 4-5 years, including at the appellate level.  You will find that serious people of some intellect do in fact take all of this seriously.

You may not personally like it, but the fact is there is a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria.  Your approach and the approach of like minded people tends to ignore this fact.

The other fact is that for a number of circumstances medical care providers are able to assess whether a minor has capacity to give consent.  That is that they both understand the decision they are making and have the mental capacity to determine the risks and benefits.  But more to the point, the medical professional must also make the medical judgment that the treatment is in the best interests of their patient.

People on the right tend to waive all of this medical judgment away and make it sound like children are getting gender reassignment on demand.

Also, please keep in mind the fact that many trans youth are not in supportive families and their well being is at risk if disclosure is made to the abusive parent.

But even if you reject all of this, please stop making statements that these are things that kids will grow out of.  That is a view that is entirely rejected by the medical science.

So let's try engaging on this.

You'll note I even said "I wouldn't say that no youth should ever be allowed to transition".  I recognize that gender dysphoria is real.  In some circumstances a medical transition may be appropriate, even for a youth.  There are even guidelines published by WPATH - the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. 

The problem is those guidelines are often not being followed.  Before transitioning there's supposed to be a persistent gender dysphoria.  You're supposed to be looking for co-morbidities.  But there are many reports that instead kids are being rushed onto formones right away.  Google the Tavistock Gender Clinic in the UK which was ultimately shut down.

Since you lump me in with "the approach of like minded people", I will do the same, although feel free to take your own view.  The problem with "people of your mindset" is you seem to take the view that just because some parents might be hostile, you assume that all parents are hostile.  If a kid is in need of assistance or is at risk there are methods to account for that.

The view that some kinds will grow out of gender dysphoria is not "rejected by medical science".  There's pretty good evidence that some kids will in fact grow out of gender dysphoria.  Note I didn't say all.  DO not accuse me of saying that being "trans" isn't real for some people.

Here's one of the first articles that came up when I googled Tavistock.

Under its original leadership, the clinic took a nuanced approach to distressed teenagers, using therapy to work out how best to help them. But it gradually became something more like a conveyor belt to puberty blockers, which were in turn the gateway to cross-sex hormones, and drastic surgery. This shift seems to have been driven by multiple factors, including money, a new chief executive and rapidly increasing demand. In 2007, the clinic was seeing about 50 children a year. By the time its closure was announced, in 2022, it was getting thousands of referrals every year.

https://www.ft.com/content/a45a9a0b-5d2f-4c4a-b2ef-796a86ea5d10

[Grey Fox]

I find that conservatives parents seem to willfully ignore the fact that their are abusive and unsupportive parents. Even that they can be found in their religious communities.

But when they do acknowledge that fact, they react like the death penalty rule can't apply to children or families.

[Jacob]

So I try not to wade into trans issues very much, because Sophie made it pretty clear she saw it as an attack on her.

Indeed.

But there's something really creepy and wrong going on out there when it comes to youth gender transition.

Is there?

Certainly this has recently become a major talking point and concern for the right wing across a number of countries.

I mean, you phrase it differently but it seems you are essentially agreeing with the article I posted. You think "something creepy is going on" and you are concerned about it. That it is being parsed as an attack by the people whose rights and health are being negatively impacted by fighting this "something creepy going on" is hardly surprising.

Personally I'm not sure what the creepy thing is.

I wouldn't say that no youth should ever be allowed to transition, but numbers have absolutely skyrocketed over the last decade, in particular amongst female to male people.  There's a lot to suggest that puberty, in particular female puberty, can be difficult, but that many people who are transitioning would grow up to become lesbians once they accept their body.

I agree that it's pretty clear that the number of people transitioning has skyrocketed in the last decade or so.

I'm not sure it's creepy, nor that this is a particular problem that requires society to rally against "radical gender ideology."

I still find it shocking that the idea that kids should be allowed to transition, including medically, all without any input from their parents, is a position people seriously put forward.

The current battle - in Canada - seems to be about whether children can be addressed by a preferred pronoun without first getting permission from parents.

While pronoun usage is obviously important to the people using them, and while pronoun usage is a significant element in transitioning it is distinct from hormonal, pharmacological, and/or surgical interventions (and eminently reversible).

Is anyone in Canada advocating for irreversible transition for minors without parental consent or knowledge as a matter of course? Is that something that is possible right now? Is it something that is potentially possible in situations where there's been serious breakdowns in the relationship between child and parents, for the good of the mental health of the child, after a thorough process of medical and psychological review? Are kids right now undergoing irreversible transitioning processes without parental consent? How many and how? Or is this purely a hypothetical scenario being rallied against?

What exactly is the debate about? Is it about "the radical gender ideology" that trans people exist and that they should be supported, whether they are children or not?

Or is this about the debate between whether children are objects owned by their parents (who have the right to decide whether the child should be allowed to transition or not) or whether children have autonomous health and bodily rights that means that in some cases they can get medical and mental health services - or merely have their wishes about pronoun usage respected - even if the parent disapproves.

Because if it's the second one - whether a child is an object or a person - then it really has nothing to do with "radical gender ideology" - parents will have the right to empower (or potentially force) their child to transition if they so choose.

Jacob, I think you would be one of the first ones to say that we should distinguish between the actions of some people (like the terrorists of Hamas) and the rightness of their cause (justice for Palestinians), so why you don't grant the same grace to those questioning "radical gender ideology" escapes me.

1) I'd prefer it if you did not link this conversation to Israel and Palestine, and if you avoid making assumptions about my opinions and positions in that conflict.

2) As you said:

So this is the problem, both on the right and the left, with these fucking culture wars.  "radical gender ideology" is just as malleable a term as "woke".

If you - or Poillievre - do not define what you mean by the term "radical gender ideology" it seems pretty reasonable to me that we assume you are using the same definition as people engaging in activism to fight it. If you mean something else, by all means explain what you mean.

What exactly is "gender ideology"? Why should it be fought so vehemently?

If there are people out there doxxing teachers that is wrong.

Agreed.

I also think picketing schools is wrong.

[Jacob]

Here's one of the first articles that came up when I googled Tavistock.

Under its original leadership, the clinic took a nuanced approach to distressed teenagers, using therapy to work out how best to help them. But it gradually became something more like a conveyor belt to puberty blockers, which were in turn the gateway to cross-sex hormones, and drastic surgery. This shift seems to have been driven by multiple factors, including money, a new chief executive and rapidly increasing demand. In 2007, the clinic was seeing about 50 children a year. By the time its closure was announced, in 2022, it was getting thousands of referrals every year.

https://www.ft.com/content/a45a9a0b-5d2f-4c4a-b2ef-796a86ea5d10

If there's a problem, based on your description it seems it's one of of misaligned incentives in profit driven medical care rather than ideology.

[crazy canuck]

The problem is those guidelines are often not being followed.  Before transitioning there's supposed to be a persistent gender dysphoria.  You're supposed to be looking for co-morbidities.  But there are many reports that instead kids are being rushed onto formones right away.  Google the Tavistock Gender Clinic in the UK which was ultimately shut dow

Are there any reported cases in Canada where medical professionals are not diagnosing gender dysphoria appropriately?  I am not aware of any, and as our courts have often noted, if that did occur, that would be a matter of discipline for the College providing he medical professional with their license to practice.

Given that there is a regulartory safeguard if medical professionals are not diagnosing the condition appropriately, what reasonable remaining concern could there be?  Put another way, why do you want to remove the possibility of entirely appropriate medical treatment if an parent does not consent?

Since you lump me in with "the approach of like minded people", I will do the same, although feel free to take your own view.  The problem with "people of your mindset" is you seem to take the view that just because some parents might be hostile, you assume that all parents are hostile.  If a kid is in need of assistance or is at risk there are methods to account for that.

No, as our courts have repeatedly pointed out, it is preferrable if parents are involved.  But the reason we have developed case law in this area is because a parent wishes to prevent the medical treatment even if all the medical indications are that the procedure is medically necessary.

See for example https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/ca/20/00/2020BCCA0011.htm

The view that some kinds will grow out of gender dysphoria is not "rejected by medical science".  There's pretty good evidence that some kids will in fact grow out of gender dysphoria.  Note I didn't say all.  DO not accuse me of saying that being "trans" isn't real for some people.

The view that some kinds will grow out of gender dysphoria is not "rejected by medical science".  There's pretty good evidence that some kids will in fact grow out of gender dysphoria.  Note I didn't say all.  DO not accuse me of saying that being "trans" isn't real for some people.

You have cited an article from a financial newspaper.  Do you have a source from a recognized medical journal for this medical issue?

But more to the point you have confused the issue.  There is no medical evidence that someone who has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria will grow out of it.  If you read the case I linked you will see all the symptoms which must be present before such a diagnosis can be made.  Those factors can be summed up in part as being this is a persistent medical condition that will not change.

The idea that someone will grow out of gender dysphoria has a lot in common with the notion that someone can be taught not to be gay.

[crazy canuck]

Is anyone in Canada advocating for irreversible transition for minors without parental consent or knowledge as a matter of course? Is that something that is possible right now? Is it something that is potentially possible in situations where there's been serious breakdowns in the relationship between child and parents, for the good of the mental health of the child, after a thorough process of medical and psychological review? Are kids right now undergoing irreversible transitioning processes without parental consent? How many and how? Or is this purely a hypothetical scenario being rallied against?

Yes, this is something that is happening now in the appropriate medical circumstances.

I will post the same case I linked for BB which describes what must occur for that medical treatment to occur.

https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/ca/20/00/2020BCCA0011.htm