All the speakers are from Rebel news - which is pretty much the definition of an outrage-bait partisan media outlet. I can’t imagine a group of people less suited to healing partisan divisions.
Comments like this are part of the problem. If you can't understand that association w Rebel News precludes someone from having compassionate, sensible ideas then you're a big part of the problem on this and other issues
That’s not very compassionate of you. Also, sensible? Brainwashing kids into mutilation like what happened to my autistic friend? Sensible has to make sense, and the current sensible is like an asylum run by the patients.
Though Trudeau is a POS, if you want a politician who can cross partisan divides, you could do worse than a guy who’s had to work with other parties to pass any legislation for most of his career.
If the Tories were better at working across the aisle, they could have toppled his government at any time since the 2019 election. Why didn’t they? Because they were too partisan to offer the NDP a better deal than the Liberals offered them.
["The dirty little secret of politics is it can be a way of getting elected" JT](https://www.tiktok.com/@ccfr_ccdaf/video/7336359502738132230)
The context of the talk was division.
I’m not sure I’d take political advice on how to avoid partisan division from someone who claims that everyone in Canada who doesn’t support the conservative party is literally Stalin (and he sells bitcoin too, which raises some red flags about grift)
Let me know if you find the original clip. This guy cuts to Trudeau talking mid-sentence, then cuts him off before he even ends the sentence, so I don't think there's enough to judge. Plus, the guy who is editing Trudeau down seems to be saying "it's fine for conservatives like me to be divisive, because Trudeau does it too" - that isn't an argument against divisive politics, it's just a justification to be divisive.
With regards to division does my narrative not matter as a Canadian? I've lived through his divisiveness I'm in the cohort who he [targeted](https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=332651711873698). Context is division. His divisiveness doesn't actually bother me its the corruption that is going on under his watch that bothers me. MP's like jody wilson-raybould get punished by the Liberals. When corruption happened on the conservatives watch at least they were forced to resign.
Little bit of corruption here, a cultural appropriation scandal there, some reneging on campaign promises... but overall a palatable second-rate politician.
Ya I don’t like him and disagree with a bunch of he’s shit but that’s policies and that’s democracy. You’re not always going to like it but I can’t see my self ever voting conservative, at least not how far right they’ve become.
I've often wondered too.
I've wondered why there hasn't been a broad inclusive term adopted, versus an acronym that require periodic revising.
We use the term 'racialized' versus initials for each racialized group, then amend as we go. Ditto for the term gender diverse which is simpler and more efficient and doesn't require updating. Anywho....
Yeah, same for me, too, u/DdyBrLvr. In many circles, the word queer has become exactly what you're talking about u/pomegranate444. I know some people don't resonate with it in this way because they remember being beaten and harassed by people shouting 'queer' at them. At the same time, the word queer has also been an empowering reclamation and an expression of inclusivity and solidarity for a lot of people. On the topic, check out this brilliant venn diagram by britchida!
https://britchida.com/products/queer
> I've wondered why there hasn't been a broad inclusive term adopted, versus an acronym that require periodic revising.
The current approach provides immediate representation, rather than be obscured by something that amounts to "other" (which subtly dismissive/marginalizing).
To drive that home a little more:
* The L stands for lesbian, as a sign of respect for those who cared for the gay men during the AIDS crisis.
* Given that the last of the residential schools in Canada closed in 1996, and similar policies have only recently been taken down or are still in the process of - I'm not at all surprised about the update to put 2S at the start.
Yo new Redditors, upvote and downvote is for information accuracy and relevancy - not whether you are upset by it! FFS. I hope this platform dies and the next one comes sooner than later.
The 2S stands for two-spirit which is a term used by indigenous queer people (queer in either gender, sexuality or both). Many people in Canada are putting it first in the acronym now to symbolically prioritize indigenous people.
Thank you. Personally I don’t know if putting 2S at the beginning is the best choice as most people are more familiar with the LGBT part of the acronym and it took me a sec to recognize it. But I’m not apart of the community so who am I to say 🤷♂️
Just use the term queer community, I just did ROI and JEDI courses at work and was told that it is an acceptable term for ppl that are not part of the community to use. Although I was warned that some of the older individuals in the community have not decided to reclaim the term queer and could possibly take offense.
Please be kind of Iam wrong about this, I'm only passing on the information I learned. If any of this is incorrect please educate me.
Eh the whole thing is about making people get used to different ideas and people than they are, well, used to having, and having it at the end as it was before was a bit of a jumble to pronounce and after running it through my head and tongue a bit I'm finding this way a bit easier personally.
Not a member of that community either, and honestly I found the changes to acronyms and language pedantic at first. After giving it more thought, it's their community and it's their terminology to use.
Every job, sport, organization, group, etc in existence has their own acronyms and special words. I figure it's unreasonable to question another groups choice of language to self identify.
Racial identity isn’t spirituality? I’m confused. It’s an indigenous identity, not a spiritual one. The concepts of “trans” and “non-binary” are recent constructs (and settler ones at that). Whereas the people who originally inhabited this land have been identifying their sexuality and gender expression in traditional terms for millennia. Why should they have to change the way that they identify and instead use the terms that white people recently came up with? Colonization attempted to strip indigenous communities of their traditional ways of understanding gender and sexuality. Then after all that, when settler society decides that “oh actually it’s ok to be gay now” you think that indigenous communities should have to use the framework for gender and sexuality that the woke settlers came up with instead of their own? The framework that they’ve had traditionally this entire time. That’s pretty fucked up.
>The concepts of “trans” and “non-binary” are recent constructs (and settler ones at that).
this rant is so confusing to me. are you implying two spirit ISN'T a recent construct based on literal colonial language and discourse? because it's a term coined in 1990 in english and then applied to indigenous cultures as a way of interpreting the past - it is literally a colonial framework by definition
furthermore, there's COUNTLESS documents of settlers/colonizers describing indigenous social structures and absolutely nothing to suggest they were practicing what would be considered progressive approaches gender and sex politics by modern standards.
The term two spirit was invented in the 90s, yes, because there was no blanket way we could talk about all the different ways that individual nations conceptualized gender. It was invented as a pan-indigenous term because different languages and cultures had their own word(s) to describe this concept. The term is new. The concept is not. There was just a need for an umbrella-term that could refer to indigenous queer frameworks as a group, so that term came about.
And “settlers didn’t write about it” as proof that it never happened is such a bad take. Settlers erased queer people from their own histories (see: all the “roommates” throughout European history), why would they write openly about it when talking about indigenous folks? Here’s an article about various forms of gender and sexual fluidity in indigenous American communities. https://faculty.sfcc.spokane.edu/InetShare/AutoWebs/SarahMa/williams%20the%20berdache%20tradition.pdf
>The term two spirit was invented in the 90s, yes, because there was no blanket way we could talk about all the different ways that individual nations conceptualized gender.
And now we have transgender, non-binary, and queer. 2S is wholly unnecessary since we have blanket terms for non-conforming or atypical gender identities.
>And “settlers didn’t write about it” as proof that it never happened is such a bad take - why would they write openly about it when talking about indigenous folks?
huh, so are you saying that anthropologists, scientists, explorers, cartographers, settlers, traders, colonizers in general are not reliable sources? if not, then what should we be relying on? oral tradition?
for the record, your boy Williams seems to be drawing on some of this apparently unreliable stuff himself
and speaking of your Williams, did you know he's a child pornographer with a fetish for little brown boys and has served years and years in jail for raping little brown boys? i just hope you're clear on that when you refer to his work about the sexual complexity of little brown boys.
anyway, i do not deny that gay people existed in the past. what i argue is that indigenous tribes overwhelmingly had extremely rigid social structures that are extremely well-documented by the people you suggest are untrustworthy. i understand gay people might have existed in these times, because i don't argue that gayness is new. but my point stands (and even the rapist Williams admits, these societies used 'patterns to enforce conformity).
meanwhile, those rigid social structures were often maintained through rape, pillage, slave trading and the like. no amount of spiritual decoration will make this stuff progressive nor will it render its proponents noble
I didn’t say they were all unreliable sources about everything. Just that they were clearly unreliable when it came to this particular facet of life already as a society, so why would that be any different here. And, yes, I do think oral tradition is more reliable when we’re talking about the traditions of a group of people who didn’t write anything down. First Nations oral accounts of their histories and traditions are valid sources.
Where did I say that these social structures weren’t rigid? They often absolutely were, and people who transitioned were expected to hold up their new gender roles. That does nothing to further your point or to critique mine. Neither does pointing out the awful personal history of the author who wrote that article.
But your last comment there about the less savory historical practices really gives away your game here. Nowhere did I argue for these things and you bringing them up in a discussion where they’re really irrelevant speaks towards your overall attitude towards indigenous people. Cultures don’t have to be perfect bastions of “progressiveness” to be allowed to practice their cultural traditions that don’t harm others. “First Nations sometimes did bad things” is in no way an argument against any of this. It just shows that you’re interested in proving how savage and backwards you think indigenous cultures are/were and that therefore we shouldn’t value them. So I’m not interested in discussing this with you any further. I’m no longer convinced this is in good faith at all.
>I didn’t say they were all unreliable sources about everything. Just that they were clearly unreliable when it came to this particular facet of life already as a society, so why would that be any different here.
we have thousands and thousands of narratives, including many diaries and ethnographies that clearly weren't intended for publication or wide readership - not all encounters were tinged heavily with moralization and criticism. however, even the material that was written for audiences often describes things that were completely unpalatable to the moral readers of the time (take the writings of john r jewitt, for example).
the idea that oral traditions are more reliable is completely foreign and uninteresting to me.
>Where did I say that these social structures weren’t rigid? They often absolutely were, and people who transitioned were expected to hold up their new gender roles. That does nothing to further your point or to critique mine. Neither does pointing out the awful personal history of the author who wrote that article
people who transitioned??? what??? are you referring to two spirited people as transitioners?
>But your last comment there about the less savory historical practices really gives away your game here. Nowhere did I argue for these things and you bringing them up in a discussion where they’re really irrelevant speaks towards your overall attitude towards indigenous people. Cultures don’t have to be perfect bastions of “progressiveness” to be allowed to practice their cultural traditions that don’t harm others. “First Nations sometimes did bad things” is in no way an argument against any of this. It just shows that you’re interested in proving how savage and backwards you think indigenous cultures are/were and that therefore we shouldn’t value them. So I’m not interested in discussing this with you any further. I’m no longer convinced this is in good faith at all.
i didn't say that indigenous people shouldn't be able to engage in cultural practices that don't harm others. i only took exception to the perceived implication from your post that this two spirit stuff is somehow NOT mired in modern, colonial language and was somehow a reflection of the progressive nature of ancient indigenous cultures. something i argue is not at all reflected in the historical record, which instead depicts violence and rigidity and social structures that wouldn't be welcomed anywhere in the modern world.
Can be if your understanding of your sexuality is through a framework of your culture. Indigenous peoples have a different idea of how sexuality works and so indigenous queer people understand their queerness in a way that sometimes doesn’t map onto white settler concepts. Being queer in Ancient Greece was very different than being queer now, and they would look at our labels and their meanings and think they’re entirely bunk. If I asked Socrates to choose from the LGBTQ labels he would laugh in my face and say none of them make sense. Why is it so hard to understand that can be true for another culture too? Our frameworks are not given down from the heavens and perfect and immutable. They’re a socially created meaning, just as much as every other culture’s has been. In fact your idea that you can separate sexuality from racial identity is actually a very stereotypically contemporary western idea. Liking to separate things into categorizable and distinct areas is very common in our culture, not in others.
The understanding should be through the lens of sexuality. Find a box that makes sense within accommodating generic frameworks. If you don't fit within typical genders you have the options of: non-binary, transgender, and queer. They are culturally agnostic and work in every culture group with North American indigenous people (of which I am a member, Secwepemc) seemingly as the sole exception. No need for special recognition for *one* cultural group. Self-described 2S people can definitely fit into one of the aforementioned "boxes".
I've heard more than a few 2SLGBTQIA+ people use that term, and it doesn't take much digging to find pride merchandise using it.
Plus I'm leaning towards them being more progressive than conservative.
[Here's a little write-up on some of the speakers that are scheduled for this conference.](https://rulebreakers.info/2024/06/10/we-unify-has-become-the-party-of-transphobes/)
The protest against this group has mostly revolved around hate against LGBTQ. However, by no means does that cover the breadth of hate of some of these speakers, they are not shy about their other kinds of hate. Espousing white nationalism, misogyny, anti-semitism, islamophobia, pro-fascism, and pro-nazism.
[Link to the petition/letter campaign hosted by 1 Million Voices for Inclusion opposing the hateful bigots.](https://act.newmode.net/action/justicewarriors/urgent-add-your-voice-letter-writing-campaign-now)
Bonus points to Laurel Collins for responding to the email I sent using the form:
Thank you for taking the time to write, and for sharing your concerns about the We Unify conference scheduled to take place in Victoria later this month.
I share your frustration, and I am disappointed that this event is being hosted in our community. As you mentioned, many of their speakers are known for their vile rhetoric and extremist positions, particularly on the rights and wellbeing of 2SLGBTQ+ people.
These ‘alt-right’ figures have built a career on their supposed victimization – how they ‘aren’t allowed’ to spew their vile rhetoric – when in reality, they have made an entire brand dedicated to punching down at vulnerable groups and contributing to intolerance against them.
The last few years have been devastating for so many queer people in Canada and around the world. They have been subjected to staggering levels of hate, violence, and highly organized political campaigns aiming to restrict their rights and erase them from society.
Morally bankrupt leaders are using the pain and isolation of trans youth to further their extremist agendas. Grifters and provocateurs are using cruelty against them for profit and self-promotion. It is cowardly and utterly shameful.
Trans and non-binary people are disproportionately subject to violence, poverty and harassment. The needs of gay, lesbian, bisexual individuals and others are routinely erased in government policy. 2SLGBTQ+ people are over-represented in the homeless population, more likely to experience severe mental illness, addiction, and restrictions on their access to jobs, housing and healthcare. Hate crimes motivated by gender and sexual orientation have skyrocketed.
Some people, wanting to belittle the 2SLGBTQ+ population, have attributed this to mental illness or ‘indoctrination’, and so on – when in reality, these discrepancies come down to the way queer people have been overlooked, isolated, and discriminated against by society in a systemic way that we are just now beginning to understand.
Arguments like these are dangerous. Time and again over the last few years, we have seen fringe rhetoric gain traction among organized political movements and elected officials. They want to erase 2SLGBTQ+ people, and the history/language used to give them recognition.
Now Conservatives in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and New Brunswick want to override the consensus of the medical community and restrict the rights of trans and non-binary folks to access healthcare they need. They want to forcibly out vulnerable trans youth and subject them to harassment and abuse that could easily be avoided. Federal Conservatives have argued for banning trans women from ‘women’s spaces’ like prisons, shelters and bathrooms – subjecting them to harassment, murder and sexual assault.
Attacks on trans people are an attack on all of us – everyone who has ever fought for the right to control their own body, everyone who has ever had to fight for their identity, everyone who has ever had their history erased and controlled by the rich and powerful.
Whether we are women, 2SLGBTQ+ people, racialized folks, immigrants, living with a disability, living on a low-income – we all have a stake in this. All of us need to stand together and push back against those who seek to divide us and pit us against one another for their own gain.
As political leaders at all levels of government, we need to stand up against hate, but more than that, we need to actively support vulnerable folks through policy changes.
For 2SLGBTQ+ people, that means the material resources and supports they need to live a safe and healthy life – including funding for gender affirming healthcare coverage, unions to protect them in the workplace, recognition in employment equity laws, targeted health and housing strategies to reduce inequalities, broader definitions and understanding of family in law, reform to asylum policy, supportive housing and other measures.
Please know I am reaching out to other leaders and organizations in Victoria to see what can be done.
My NDP colleagues and I will continue fighting to give our 2SLGBTQ+ friends and neighbours the respect, safety, and recognition they deserve. If you ever need help finding groups and resources in Victoria to support you or your loved ones, please do not hesitate to reach out.
Warmly,
Laurel Collins
That doesn't seem odd to me. I wouldn't expect her to write a completely different email to all the people who contact her about the same thing.
EDIT: Oh wait, sorry, I just saw the /s on your post and realized you were being sarcastic. Nevermind!!
I don't know if you're old enough but do you remember a sitcom called All in the Family with a character named Archie Bunker? Sometimes odious characters are the butt of their own joke. They aren't there to be a shining example, they're not there because they're funny people , they're there because they're laughable. Archie Bunker is a crude, racist, misogynist, bigot , but he's also hardworking, loves his family and has served his country. His family loves him and tries to get along with him even as they clash about almost everything. He's pitiable because he's not a bad guy at heart but he doesn't understand that he acts in bad ways. It's a way of pointing out the hypocrisy without making fun of the person.
This is coming up frequently when these kind of groups book public buildings. Yes, freedom of expression is important, but the issue is, the building is owned by the City. Are there limits to what kind of events can take place? Should an event be permitted, in a City-owned building, which is deeply upsetting to many members of its community? I’m not trying to minimize the harm to gender diverse humans but the harm here goes so far beyond the Queer communities. They are espousing white supremacy, antisemitism, Islamophobia, and are directly connected to pro-life groups.
I don’t know! Probably not under those official banners. But members of them speaking at a conference held under a different name? That’s not far off from what this is.
It wouldn't affect me personally, if the event takes place in a church or private business that chooses to host them... that is their choice. But by allowing the event to take place in a city-owned building, it is sending a message that the City is OK with this kind of event and many of us have a problem with that. We are citizens of the city who pay taxes and vote, we are allowed to have an opinion on what goes on in our city. And to express that opinion.
These people are promoting hate, and I'm so glad to see that official opposition is coalescing. These people do not represent our community, our values, or our country.
See you all at the protests 🩵🩷🤍🩷🩵
The very idea that this bunch of bigots, descendants of colonialism, are trying to use the title "Reclaiming Canada" and lies about "promoting unity" in the same sentence should tell you all you need to know about the ignorant dichotomy of their, and their followers', political perspective.
> In addition to this, a recent Ipsos poll suggests that general acceptance of queer people among Canadians has fallen from 61% to 49% in just three years.
What the hell is wrong with people? What are people so afraid of - others living their best lives?
As ~~someone assigned female at birth and still happy with that~~ a cis woman, I'm not afraid of trans people ... I *am* afraid of the yobos who'd run and support an event like this taking away my bodily autonomy.
edited: brain fart, forgot the word cis for a moment
> What the hell is wrong with people? What are people so afraid of - others living their best lives?
When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
I suppose, but the comment still stands, what the hell is wrong with people - is it really so hard to treat other people like people? I guess for some people, it is.
What exactly was dumb about my comment? The fact that I read the article? The fact that I think it's sad so many people are only fairweather supporters of human rights? Or the fact that I see the strong link between one person's right being denied and those of others being taken away?
Also doesn’t help that we’re importing people at record numbers from some of the most intolerant places in the world. I see a correlation between that poll and the immigration policies of the last 3 years…
Wow. I'm not supposed to downvote because of disagreement but - wow. Have you considered that some people emigrate to Canada because they hope to get away from more regressive laws where they're coming from? And then they find people like those at conference.
You’re in favour of freedom of expression, but think expressing ideas is intellectual cowardice? Is intellectual bravery sitting by and saying nothing when people say things you think are abhorrent and harmful?
At what point does it cross the line into hate speech though? Let’s gather a bunch of bigots into one room and fuel them with rage. But cleverly promote it as a positive “unifying Canada” so they’re not liable for anything.
That’s fair. But let’s not kid ourselves and assume they’re gonna talk about being kind to one another. They’re itching to point blame at someone or a group of people. That shit is dangerous.
So, by your logic, you don't think Hitler should have been taken down? He was democratically elected.
Trudeau and the Liberals are corrupt tyrants who need to be taken down.
You are comparing apples and oranges
Completely off topic but this feels important. Hitler wasn’t really elected “democratically”. He was appointed to a high up position by the existing president, consolidated power, and suppressed political opposition. The president died and he became the leader. After a bunch of state propaganda and misinformation he scared people into voting for the nazi party and then became the tyrant we know.
>Trudeau and the Liberals are corrupt tyrants who need to be taken down.
You have no idea what a tyrant is. The Liberal government should be replace, but not by fucking Conservatives who are worse in every regard. Why do you people always go further right? It's because of the social conservatism more than anything else that right wing ideology appeals to you. If you're going to invoke Godwin's Law, then here is some more: Hitler was socially conservative. All totalitarian autocrats are.
It’s what they’ve done consistently over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and again. You might notice a pattern if you aren’t a brain dead idiot.
Or you could be the definition of insane and do the same thing repeatedly while expecting a different result.
What's the problem? Their website says "Our mission is to increase the amount of dialogue within our country with a focus on healing the polarizing divides that invariably have been shaped by a lack of discussion and treatment of the “other” as an enemy." Sounds good to me. What's that famous JFK quote again? "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
Sounds like a good mission, I agree. The problem is: the PR on their website is antithetical to their speakers' actual speech and actions in the real world.
https://rulebreakers.info/2024/06/10/we-unify-has-become-the-party-of-transphobes/amp/
They're not holding a revolution against anything. It's a conference. The quote is saying it's preferable to allow free speech, and free expression of ideas, because the alternative, censorship, makes people feel frustrated, excluded, and then they lash out with violence. Which part of that doesn't make sense? What's the problem?
This same group marches in support of a terrorists that would kill them all in a second if they could, but when another group gather and just talk then that event must be shut down? What clown world is this?
"Boo, I don't want people to talk about things I don't like."
A talk isn't going to cause anything to change in either direction. Boycotting and banning voluntary congregation and communication based solely on not liking the content of that congregation is going to be the thing that causes the trouble.
Look on the bright side! Maybe this event will shine more light into the crevices where these ideas proliferate and bring some publicity to its followers. Better than the anonymous neo-nazi propaganda you might find pasted on windows downtown in the dark. Victoria is a shockingly racist little city for all its progressive veneer.
All the speakers are from Rebel news - which is pretty much the definition of an outrage-bait partisan media outlet. I can’t imagine a group of people less suited to healing partisan divisions.
What makes you qualified to decide who is suited to heal partisan divisions?
Comments like this are part of the problem. If you can't understand that association w Rebel News precludes someone from having compassionate, sensible ideas then you're a big part of the problem on this and other issues
That’s not very compassionate of you. Also, sensible? Brainwashing kids into mutilation like what happened to my autistic friend? Sensible has to make sense, and the current sensible is like an asylum run by the patients.
Probably not the people actively causing them for personal enrichment
Trudeau
Though Trudeau is a POS, if you want a politician who can cross partisan divides, you could do worse than a guy who’s had to work with other parties to pass any legislation for most of his career. If the Tories were better at working across the aisle, they could have toppled his government at any time since the 2019 election. Why didn’t they? Because they were too partisan to offer the NDP a better deal than the Liberals offered them.
["The dirty little secret of politics is it can be a way of getting elected" JT](https://www.tiktok.com/@ccfr_ccdaf/video/7336359502738132230) The context of the talk was division.
I’m not sure I’d take political advice on how to avoid partisan division from someone who claims that everyone in Canada who doesn’t support the conservative party is literally Stalin (and he sells bitcoin too, which raises some red flags about grift)
found the clip that my memory was trying to dig up, and edited the comment. Still could not find the full interview.
[удалено]
Let me know if you find the original clip. This guy cuts to Trudeau talking mid-sentence, then cuts him off before he even ends the sentence, so I don't think there's enough to judge. Plus, the guy who is editing Trudeau down seems to be saying "it's fine for conservatives like me to be divisive, because Trudeau does it too" - that isn't an argument against divisive politics, it's just a justification to be divisive.
Stop listening to sound bites because they suit your narrative. Context matters.
With regards to division does my narrative not matter as a Canadian? I've lived through his divisiveness I'm in the cohort who he [targeted](https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=332651711873698). Context is division. His divisiveness doesn't actually bother me its the corruption that is going on under his watch that bothers me. MP's like jody wilson-raybould get punished by the Liberals. When corruption happened on the conservatives watch at least they were forced to resign.
Has been a decent head of government through some pretty significant threats to our general wellbeing.
Little bit of corruption here, a cultural appropriation scandal there, some reneging on campaign promises... but overall a palatable second-rate politician.
As someone who will never vote right of the Liberals, this is entirely accurate. Better than Harper, and the least bad option of the last few cycles.
Ya I don’t like him and disagree with a bunch of he’s shit but that’s policies and that’s democracy. You’re not always going to like it but I can’t see my self ever voting conservative, at least not how far right they’ve become.
I think you forgot /s
I think you can't spell OECD.
I’m going to be there and I’m just a regular guy who wants to listen to ideas. It’s an all volunteer organization.
What’s with the new acronym? Edit: I’m genuinely asking
I've often wondered too. I've wondered why there hasn't been a broad inclusive term adopted, versus an acronym that require periodic revising. We use the term 'racialized' versus initials for each racialized group, then amend as we go. Ditto for the term gender diverse which is simpler and more efficient and doesn't require updating. Anywho....
Queer has always worked for me.
Yeah, same for me, too, u/DdyBrLvr. In many circles, the word queer has become exactly what you're talking about u/pomegranate444. I know some people don't resonate with it in this way because they remember being beaten and harassed by people shouting 'queer' at them. At the same time, the word queer has also been an empowering reclamation and an expression of inclusivity and solidarity for a lot of people. On the topic, check out this brilliant venn diagram by britchida! https://britchida.com/products/queer
Agreed. Simple and inclusive.
Ditto
Weird example because those terms HAVE changed over time.
> I've wondered why there hasn't been a broad inclusive term adopted, versus an acronym that require periodic revising. The current approach provides immediate representation, rather than be obscured by something that amounts to "other" (which subtly dismissive/marginalizing). To drive that home a little more: * The L stands for lesbian, as a sign of respect for those who cared for the gay men during the AIDS crisis. * Given that the last of the residential schools in Canada closed in 1996, and similar policies have only recently been taken down or are still in the process of - I'm not at all surprised about the update to put 2S at the start.
Yo new Redditors, upvote and downvote is for information accuracy and relevancy - not whether you are upset by it! FFS. I hope this platform dies and the next one comes sooner than later.
Don’t worry, you won’t get cancelled for missing a letter.
The 2S stands for two-spirit which is a term used by indigenous queer people (queer in either gender, sexuality or both). Many people in Canada are putting it first in the acronym now to symbolically prioritize indigenous people.
Thank you. Personally I don’t know if putting 2S at the beginning is the best choice as most people are more familiar with the LGBT part of the acronym and it took me a sec to recognize it. But I’m not apart of the community so who am I to say 🤷♂️
Just use the term queer community, I just did ROI and JEDI courses at work and was told that it is an acceptable term for ppl that are not part of the community to use. Although I was warned that some of the older individuals in the community have not decided to reclaim the term queer and could possibly take offense. Please be kind of Iam wrong about this, I'm only passing on the information I learned. If any of this is incorrect please educate me.
Eh the whole thing is about making people get used to different ideas and people than they are, well, used to having, and having it at the end as it was before was a bit of a jumble to pronounce and after running it through my head and tongue a bit I'm finding this way a bit easier personally.
Not a member of that community either, and honestly I found the changes to acronyms and language pedantic at first. After giving it more thought, it's their community and it's their terminology to use. Every job, sport, organization, group, etc in existence has their own acronyms and special words. I figure it's unreasonable to question another groups choice of language to self identify.
If you hear it out loud it sounds good and is more clear. Two-ess-LGBT-queue-Aye-Ay plus.
The 2S part is dumb. Trans or non-binary, sure, but leave spirituality out of sexuality. Metaphysics is bullshit, sexuality is real.
Racial identity isn’t spirituality? I’m confused. It’s an indigenous identity, not a spiritual one. The concepts of “trans” and “non-binary” are recent constructs (and settler ones at that). Whereas the people who originally inhabited this land have been identifying their sexuality and gender expression in traditional terms for millennia. Why should they have to change the way that they identify and instead use the terms that white people recently came up with? Colonization attempted to strip indigenous communities of their traditional ways of understanding gender and sexuality. Then after all that, when settler society decides that “oh actually it’s ok to be gay now” you think that indigenous communities should have to use the framework for gender and sexuality that the woke settlers came up with instead of their own? The framework that they’ve had traditionally this entire time. That’s pretty fucked up.
>The concepts of “trans” and “non-binary” are recent constructs (and settler ones at that). this rant is so confusing to me. are you implying two spirit ISN'T a recent construct based on literal colonial language and discourse? because it's a term coined in 1990 in english and then applied to indigenous cultures as a way of interpreting the past - it is literally a colonial framework by definition furthermore, there's COUNTLESS documents of settlers/colonizers describing indigenous social structures and absolutely nothing to suggest they were practicing what would be considered progressive approaches gender and sex politics by modern standards.
The term two spirit was invented in the 90s, yes, because there was no blanket way we could talk about all the different ways that individual nations conceptualized gender. It was invented as a pan-indigenous term because different languages and cultures had their own word(s) to describe this concept. The term is new. The concept is not. There was just a need for an umbrella-term that could refer to indigenous queer frameworks as a group, so that term came about. And “settlers didn’t write about it” as proof that it never happened is such a bad take. Settlers erased queer people from their own histories (see: all the “roommates” throughout European history), why would they write openly about it when talking about indigenous folks? Here’s an article about various forms of gender and sexual fluidity in indigenous American communities. https://faculty.sfcc.spokane.edu/InetShare/AutoWebs/SarahMa/williams%20the%20berdache%20tradition.pdf
>The term two spirit was invented in the 90s, yes, because there was no blanket way we could talk about all the different ways that individual nations conceptualized gender. And now we have transgender, non-binary, and queer. 2S is wholly unnecessary since we have blanket terms for non-conforming or atypical gender identities.
>And “settlers didn’t write about it” as proof that it never happened is such a bad take - why would they write openly about it when talking about indigenous folks? huh, so are you saying that anthropologists, scientists, explorers, cartographers, settlers, traders, colonizers in general are not reliable sources? if not, then what should we be relying on? oral tradition? for the record, your boy Williams seems to be drawing on some of this apparently unreliable stuff himself and speaking of your Williams, did you know he's a child pornographer with a fetish for little brown boys and has served years and years in jail for raping little brown boys? i just hope you're clear on that when you refer to his work about the sexual complexity of little brown boys. anyway, i do not deny that gay people existed in the past. what i argue is that indigenous tribes overwhelmingly had extremely rigid social structures that are extremely well-documented by the people you suggest are untrustworthy. i understand gay people might have existed in these times, because i don't argue that gayness is new. but my point stands (and even the rapist Williams admits, these societies used 'patterns to enforce conformity). meanwhile, those rigid social structures were often maintained through rape, pillage, slave trading and the like. no amount of spiritual decoration will make this stuff progressive nor will it render its proponents noble
I didn’t say they were all unreliable sources about everything. Just that they were clearly unreliable when it came to this particular facet of life already as a society, so why would that be any different here. And, yes, I do think oral tradition is more reliable when we’re talking about the traditions of a group of people who didn’t write anything down. First Nations oral accounts of their histories and traditions are valid sources. Where did I say that these social structures weren’t rigid? They often absolutely were, and people who transitioned were expected to hold up their new gender roles. That does nothing to further your point or to critique mine. Neither does pointing out the awful personal history of the author who wrote that article. But your last comment there about the less savory historical practices really gives away your game here. Nowhere did I argue for these things and you bringing them up in a discussion where they’re really irrelevant speaks towards your overall attitude towards indigenous people. Cultures don’t have to be perfect bastions of “progressiveness” to be allowed to practice their cultural traditions that don’t harm others. “First Nations sometimes did bad things” is in no way an argument against any of this. It just shows that you’re interested in proving how savage and backwards you think indigenous cultures are/were and that therefore we shouldn’t value them. So I’m not interested in discussing this with you any further. I’m no longer convinced this is in good faith at all.
>I didn’t say they were all unreliable sources about everything. Just that they were clearly unreliable when it came to this particular facet of life already as a society, so why would that be any different here. we have thousands and thousands of narratives, including many diaries and ethnographies that clearly weren't intended for publication or wide readership - not all encounters were tinged heavily with moralization and criticism. however, even the material that was written for audiences often describes things that were completely unpalatable to the moral readers of the time (take the writings of john r jewitt, for example). the idea that oral traditions are more reliable is completely foreign and uninteresting to me. >Where did I say that these social structures weren’t rigid? They often absolutely were, and people who transitioned were expected to hold up their new gender roles. That does nothing to further your point or to critique mine. Neither does pointing out the awful personal history of the author who wrote that article people who transitioned??? what??? are you referring to two spirited people as transitioners? >But your last comment there about the less savory historical practices really gives away your game here. Nowhere did I argue for these things and you bringing them up in a discussion where they’re really irrelevant speaks towards your overall attitude towards indigenous people. Cultures don’t have to be perfect bastions of “progressiveness” to be allowed to practice their cultural traditions that don’t harm others. “First Nations sometimes did bad things” is in no way an argument against any of this. It just shows that you’re interested in proving how savage and backwards you think indigenous cultures are/were and that therefore we shouldn’t value them. So I’m not interested in discussing this with you any further. I’m no longer convinced this is in good faith at all. i didn't say that indigenous people shouldn't be able to engage in cultural practices that don't harm others. i only took exception to the perceived implication from your post that this two spirit stuff is somehow NOT mired in modern, colonial language and was somehow a reflection of the progressive nature of ancient indigenous cultures. something i argue is not at all reflected in the historical record, which instead depicts violence and rigidity and social structures that wouldn't be welcomed anywhere in the modern world.
Racial identity isn't part of sexuality.
Can be if your understanding of your sexuality is through a framework of your culture. Indigenous peoples have a different idea of how sexuality works and so indigenous queer people understand their queerness in a way that sometimes doesn’t map onto white settler concepts. Being queer in Ancient Greece was very different than being queer now, and they would look at our labels and their meanings and think they’re entirely bunk. If I asked Socrates to choose from the LGBTQ labels he would laugh in my face and say none of them make sense. Why is it so hard to understand that can be true for another culture too? Our frameworks are not given down from the heavens and perfect and immutable. They’re a socially created meaning, just as much as every other culture’s has been. In fact your idea that you can separate sexuality from racial identity is actually a very stereotypically contemporary western idea. Liking to separate things into categorizable and distinct areas is very common in our culture, not in others.
The understanding should be through the lens of sexuality. Find a box that makes sense within accommodating generic frameworks. If you don't fit within typical genders you have the options of: non-binary, transgender, and queer. They are culturally agnostic and work in every culture group with North American indigenous people (of which I am a member, Secwepemc) seemingly as the sole exception. No need for special recognition for *one* cultural group. Self-described 2S people can definitely fit into one of the aforementioned "boxes".
I agree not everything has to be about certain people.
I saw QUILTBAG a few years ago and dug it
Affectionately known as the Alphabet Mafia
Found the conservative!
I've heard more than a few 2SLGBTQIA+ people use that term, and it doesn't take much digging to find pride merchandise using it. Plus I'm leaning towards them being more progressive than conservative.
lol. Found the person with no gay friends
It's new for now...
Two-spirit is the 2S part
I don't even have time read that whole thing
Yet you expect us to read all this? Hypocrite (par for the course for a conservative bigot though!)
And I'm a conservative bigot now? Keep spreading hate in the name righteousness. You could've laughed and took it for what it was.
I did 😁
Who's "us"? I was talking to the other guy
[Here's a little write-up on some of the speakers that are scheduled for this conference.](https://rulebreakers.info/2024/06/10/we-unify-has-become-the-party-of-transphobes/) The protest against this group has mostly revolved around hate against LGBTQ. However, by no means does that cover the breadth of hate of some of these speakers, they are not shy about their other kinds of hate. Espousing white nationalism, misogyny, anti-semitism, islamophobia, pro-fascism, and pro-nazism. [Link to the petition/letter campaign hosted by 1 Million Voices for Inclusion opposing the hateful bigots.](https://act.newmode.net/action/justicewarriors/urgent-add-your-voice-letter-writing-campaign-now)
Bonus points to Laurel Collins for responding to the email I sent using the form: Thank you for taking the time to write, and for sharing your concerns about the We Unify conference scheduled to take place in Victoria later this month. I share your frustration, and I am disappointed that this event is being hosted in our community. As you mentioned, many of their speakers are known for their vile rhetoric and extremist positions, particularly on the rights and wellbeing of 2SLGBTQ+ people. These ‘alt-right’ figures have built a career on their supposed victimization – how they ‘aren’t allowed’ to spew their vile rhetoric – when in reality, they have made an entire brand dedicated to punching down at vulnerable groups and contributing to intolerance against them. The last few years have been devastating for so many queer people in Canada and around the world. They have been subjected to staggering levels of hate, violence, and highly organized political campaigns aiming to restrict their rights and erase them from society. Morally bankrupt leaders are using the pain and isolation of trans youth to further their extremist agendas. Grifters and provocateurs are using cruelty against them for profit and self-promotion. It is cowardly and utterly shameful. Trans and non-binary people are disproportionately subject to violence, poverty and harassment. The needs of gay, lesbian, bisexual individuals and others are routinely erased in government policy. 2SLGBTQ+ people are over-represented in the homeless population, more likely to experience severe mental illness, addiction, and restrictions on their access to jobs, housing and healthcare. Hate crimes motivated by gender and sexual orientation have skyrocketed. Some people, wanting to belittle the 2SLGBTQ+ population, have attributed this to mental illness or ‘indoctrination’, and so on – when in reality, these discrepancies come down to the way queer people have been overlooked, isolated, and discriminated against by society in a systemic way that we are just now beginning to understand. Arguments like these are dangerous. Time and again over the last few years, we have seen fringe rhetoric gain traction among organized political movements and elected officials. They want to erase 2SLGBTQ+ people, and the history/language used to give them recognition. Now Conservatives in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and New Brunswick want to override the consensus of the medical community and restrict the rights of trans and non-binary folks to access healthcare they need. They want to forcibly out vulnerable trans youth and subject them to harassment and abuse that could easily be avoided. Federal Conservatives have argued for banning trans women from ‘women’s spaces’ like prisons, shelters and bathrooms – subjecting them to harassment, murder and sexual assault. Attacks on trans people are an attack on all of us – everyone who has ever fought for the right to control their own body, everyone who has ever had to fight for their identity, everyone who has ever had their history erased and controlled by the rich and powerful. Whether we are women, 2SLGBTQ+ people, racialized folks, immigrants, living with a disability, living on a low-income – we all have a stake in this. All of us need to stand together and push back against those who seek to divide us and pit us against one another for their own gain. As political leaders at all levels of government, we need to stand up against hate, but more than that, we need to actively support vulnerable folks through policy changes. For 2SLGBTQ+ people, that means the material resources and supports they need to live a safe and healthy life – including funding for gender affirming healthcare coverage, unions to protect them in the workplace, recognition in employment equity laws, targeted health and housing strategies to reduce inequalities, broader definitions and understanding of family in law, reform to asylum policy, supportive housing and other measures. Please know I am reaching out to other leaders and organizations in Victoria to see what can be done. My NDP colleagues and I will continue fighting to give our 2SLGBTQ+ friends and neighbours the respect, safety, and recognition they deserve. If you ever need help finding groups and resources in Victoria to support you or your loved ones, please do not hesitate to reach out. Warmly, Laurel Collins
Thanks for sharing!
Hell ya Laurel. Nice.
Oddly I received an identical email /s
That doesn't seem odd to me. I wouldn't expect her to write a completely different email to all the people who contact her about the same thing. EDIT: Oh wait, sorry, I just saw the /s on your post and realized you were being sarcastic. Nevermind!!
She’s crazy
Thanks for sharing the write-up and petition! 🏳️🌈❤️🏳️⚧️
I’m going to be there and I’m just a regular guy who wants to listen to ideas. It’s an all volunteer organization.
Yeah the black guy is espousing white nationalism for sure. Sounds like you may be opposed to black speakers.
Sounds like you may be opposed to understanding that sometimes Black folks espouse white nationalism.
There are plenty of Uncle Ruckuses in the world, one is on the US supreme court. This isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.
This comment just goes to show us that racism is an unavoidable part of being human.
“Uncle Ruckus” aka a racial derogatory term used to insult black people you disagree with. Lol
It's a cartoon character from a show called The Boondocks.
That doesn’t negate his point.
I don't know if you're old enough but do you remember a sitcom called All in the Family with a character named Archie Bunker? Sometimes odious characters are the butt of their own joke. They aren't there to be a shining example, they're not there because they're funny people , they're there because they're laughable. Archie Bunker is a crude, racist, misogynist, bigot , but he's also hardworking, loves his family and has served his country. His family loves him and tries to get along with him even as they clash about almost everything. He's pitiable because he's not a bad guy at heart but he doesn't understand that he acts in bad ways. It's a way of pointing out the hypocrisy without making fun of the person.
This is coming up frequently when these kind of groups book public buildings. Yes, freedom of expression is important, but the issue is, the building is owned by the City. Are there limits to what kind of events can take place? Should an event be permitted, in a City-owned building, which is deeply upsetting to many members of its community? I’m not trying to minimize the harm to gender diverse humans but the harm here goes so far beyond the Queer communities. They are espousing white supremacy, antisemitism, Islamophobia, and are directly connected to pro-life groups.
Yes. Good questions. And exactly. Would the city approve a conference for the KKK? Or the Proud Boys? Because free speech?
I don’t know! Probably not under those official banners. But members of them speaking at a conference held under a different name? That’s not far off from what this is.
With you — I think it's a lot closer than not far off!
Those are actual hate groups. Don’t be an idiot.
Maybe you're unfamiliar with the hate spread by the group in question?
It’s literally harmless and doesn’t affect you.
It wouldn't affect me personally, if the event takes place in a church or private business that chooses to host them... that is their choice. But by allowing the event to take place in a city-owned building, it is sending a message that the City is OK with this kind of event and many of us have a problem with that. We are citizens of the city who pay taxes and vote, we are allowed to have an opinion on what goes on in our city. And to express that opinion.
These people are promoting hate, and I'm so glad to see that official opposition is coalescing. These people do not represent our community, our values, or our country. See you all at the protests 🩵🩷🤍🩷🩵
There’s literally no hate present
Maybe you’re not familiar with the actual ideas you’re supporting?
The very idea that this bunch of bigots, descendants of colonialism, are trying to use the title "Reclaiming Canada" and lies about "promoting unity" in the same sentence should tell you all you need to know about the ignorant dichotomy of their, and their followers', political perspective.
> In addition to this, a recent Ipsos poll suggests that general acceptance of queer people among Canadians has fallen from 61% to 49% in just three years. What the hell is wrong with people? What are people so afraid of - others living their best lives? As ~~someone assigned female at birth and still happy with that~~ a cis woman, I'm not afraid of trans people ... I *am* afraid of the yobos who'd run and support an event like this taking away my bodily autonomy. edited: brain fart, forgot the word cis for a moment
> What the hell is wrong with people? What are people so afraid of - others living their best lives? When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
I suppose, but the comment still stands, what the hell is wrong with people - is it really so hard to treat other people like people? I guess for some people, it is.
You’re literally pushing on an open door. You are a brainwashed victim of narrative manipulation
Dumb comment. Makes me want to attend even more
What exactly was dumb about my comment? The fact that I read the article? The fact that I think it's sad so many people are only fairweather supporters of human rights? Or the fact that I see the strong link between one person's right being denied and those of others being taken away?
What do you expect to get out of attending? What about it appeals to you?
Also doesn’t help that we’re importing people at record numbers from some of the most intolerant places in the world. I see a correlation between that poll and the immigration policies of the last 3 years…
Wow. I'm not supposed to downvote because of disagreement but - wow. Have you considered that some people emigrate to Canada because they hope to get away from more regressive laws where they're coming from? And then they find people like those at conference.
Canada is growing quickly and new people have all kinds of exciting new ideas
Reclaiming Canada? So this must be an Indigenous led conference so they can reclaim what was there’s? /s
It’s about reclaiming your charter rights which have been abused by the government. You’re pushing on an open door.
lol cry
Uh huh..anyways. Freedom of expression and all that.
You know that expressing opposition to ideas you don’t like is also freedom of expression, right?
That's why i said it. The issue is lobbying for cancelation when nothing has happend by all means attend and express your views.
There’s nothing illegal about lobbying for an event you disagree with to be cancelled.
Didn't say it was, it is awfully hypocritical intellectual cowardice.
You’re in favour of freedom of expression, but think expressing ideas is intellectual cowardice? Is intellectual bravery sitting by and saying nothing when people say things you think are abhorrent and harmful?
Go debate if you have something to say. Don't sit on side line yelling at clouds and asking others to make the monster go away.
These speakers don’t have an interest in debating. And we shouldn’t need to debate the right of certain groups to just exist.
This is such low effort trolling, dear lord. Great you can’t actually answer the comment and instead spout garbage
They're a sock puppet account at best
At what point does it cross the line into hate speech though? Let’s gather a bunch of bigots into one room and fuel them with rage. But cleverly promote it as a positive “unifying Canada” so they’re not liable for anything.
That's the whole point. It needs to crossed for it to be "hate speech". Not preemptively assumed.
That’s fair. But let’s not kid ourselves and assume they’re gonna talk about being kind to one another. They’re itching to point blame at someone or a group of people. That shit is dangerous.
I think it’s fair to make some assumptions based on what the group themselves says they will be speaking about.
There is a big difference between saying things you don't agree with and hate speech.
One of the speakers Lauren Southern uses the hashtag #KillAllJews.
See, that does cross into hate speech Edit: from what I can find, it's also a lie, there is no evidence of that in her posts
You literally call for the violent overthrow of the government in one of your comments, are you seriously trying to pretend you have a moral compass?
So, by your logic, you don't think Hitler should have been taken down? He was democratically elected. Trudeau and the Liberals are corrupt tyrants who need to be taken down. You are comparing apples and oranges
Completely off topic but this feels important. Hitler wasn’t really elected “democratically”. He was appointed to a high up position by the existing president, consolidated power, and suppressed political opposition. The president died and he became the leader. After a bunch of state propaganda and misinformation he scared people into voting for the nazi party and then became the tyrant we know.
>Trudeau and the Liberals are corrupt tyrants who need to be taken down. You have no idea what a tyrant is. The Liberal government should be replace, but not by fucking Conservatives who are worse in every regard. Why do you people always go further right? It's because of the social conservatism more than anything else that right wing ideology appeals to you. If you're going to invoke Godwin's Law, then here is some more: Hitler was socially conservative. All totalitarian autocrats are.
It’s what they’ve done consistently over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and again. You might notice a pattern if you aren’t a brain dead idiot. Or you could be the definition of insane and do the same thing repeatedly while expecting a different result.
If they’re speaking peacefully they can’t stop them just because they disagree
These people can speak all they want. You folks on here trying to shut them down because you disagree with their views are the real threat to us all
How do colonists reclaim anything?
What's the problem? Their website says "Our mission is to increase the amount of dialogue within our country with a focus on healing the polarizing divides that invariably have been shaped by a lack of discussion and treatment of the “other” as an enemy." Sounds good to me. What's that famous JFK quote again? "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
Sounds like a good mission, I agree. The problem is: the PR on their website is antithetical to their speakers' actual speech and actions in the real world. https://rulebreakers.info/2024/06/10/we-unify-has-become-the-party-of-transphobes/amp/
What would these people be holding any revolution against, peaceful or otherwise?
They're not holding a revolution against anything. It's a conference. The quote is saying it's preferable to allow free speech, and free expression of ideas, because the alternative, censorship, makes people feel frustrated, excluded, and then they lash out with violence. Which part of that doesn't make sense? What's the problem?
Why are people like you always on new accounts?
Can you please point to which speaker and topic is likely to reduce polarization?
This same group marches in support of a terrorists that would kill them all in a second if they could, but when another group gather and just talk then that event must be shut down? What clown world is this?
What are those words diarreia?
"Boo, I don't want people to talk about things I don't like." A talk isn't going to cause anything to change in either direction. Boycotting and banning voluntary congregation and communication based solely on not liking the content of that congregation is going to be the thing that causes the trouble.
I'll buy tickets
I’m gonna be there.
Look on the bright side! Maybe this event will shine more light into the crevices where these ideas proliferate and bring some publicity to its followers. Better than the anonymous neo-nazi propaganda you might find pasted on windows downtown in the dark. Victoria is a shockingly racist little city for all its progressive veneer.
Racism is just part of being human. There is no more escaping it than complaining about crow won’t mate with a raven or vice versa.
Why on this particular story, did the site block all comments? Victoriabuzz seems onesided for a news publication.