Wow. And yes this is just another day on Twitter. The evils of GC women are exposed in this mega-tweet that is completely hinged and dedicated to accurately describing reality.
Gender Critical women oppose the presence of men in Rape Crisis centres because – surprise – most women have been abused by males and do feel safe around them. Having people around just like the ones that abused you isn’t really a secure and therapeutic environment. Go figure?
I sincerely believe that the vast majority of GC women do not condone rape as an outcome for anyone – male or female. Most would support spaces and services that cater to the needs of trans identified males and the problems they face in society. Where the ‘no-go’ exists is the blatant colonization of female-only spaces and the desecration of female boundaries by men who claim, by fiat, to be women. (Did you want to support a female led and female only rape crisis centre here in Canada – go to Vancouver Rape Relief & Women’s Shelter page and help them out).
The only ones that are insisting on putting men in female prisons happens to be the Federal Government of Canada, who have a keen ability to seemingly not be able identify male sex offenders correctly and happily place them in a female prison, a nice target rich environment for them to continue their abuse. Did you want to stop the abusive policy of putting men in female prisons? Find Heather Mason on twitter and find out what you can do to reverse this disastrous policy decision that jeopardizes female safety within Canada’s prisons.
Trans existence has never been in doubt. The whinging of entitled males continues to reverberate through Canadian society at the detriment to female boundaries, services, and safety.
Men should be in the male prison system regardless of how they identify. No one has the right not to be responsible for the choices they make in society. That is how being an adult works.
Thanks for coming to this installment of trans hyperbole translations – sadly there will be many more upcoming episodes.
It certainly seems like the religious, libertarian hard right fringe has made its way from the US to Canada. The illegal occupation of Ottawa and border crossings are prime examples of the profoundly undemocratic/reactionary roots of this ‘movement’.
The police are reacting with a glacial slowness that is exacerbating the situation. Much more needs to be done to protect our civil society, public health, and democratic institutions.
“It has been said, often, during this crisis that you can’t live in downtown Ottawa without becoming very, very familiar with protests and demonstrations. They are a regular thing here. It’s the seat of government, after all. For me, they are a feature of the place, not a bug.
Demonstrations and protests (they are different but related, but we’ll save the details this time) are a critical part of a functioning, pluralistic democracy. They allow particularly contentious issues to bubble to the surface, to gain exposure and, potentially, drive change.
Successful demonstrations grab attention but more importantly, they focus that attention on solving a particular policy problem in a particular way. They succeed by highlighting actions that *can* be taken and usually suggest *how* they might be taken.
It should be crystal clear by now that what is happening in Ottawa is not that. The *demands* that are being made are like a ransom note from a B-grade thriller. They are unintelligible in the extreme. Even if a government wanted to comply, where would they begin?
In our system, each geographical district elects a representative who goes to Ottawa and participates in policy development and law-making on our behalf. Once we choose them, they are free to do as they please, governed by the rules and foundational laws of our country.
If we don’t like the job they are doing, we pick someone better the next time. And so on, and so on. But what about mid-term? What if we hate what the government is doing? What can we do? We can get together with like-minded people and demonstrate.It lets the government know we’re displeased and want a change. If the ask is doable, and popular enough, demonstrations can move minds… because representatives want to get re-elected, yes, but also because the willingness of people to protest, en masse, is compelling.
But there are rules. The constitution lays out the form and function of government… including rules on how to change the rules. A protest that demands changes to *that* has a huge hill to climb. It’s complicated stuff. (For reference go read up on Meech and Charlottetown).
Which brings us to where we are. The manifesto of this occupation makes myriad, confusing, incompatible demands. They make no sense at all, really. There is no effective way to act on them, even if we wanted to.
Even the simplest, “end the mandates” (which ones? For whom? Which level of government?) is far from simple. It would require careful policy work and balancing of interests. But there, exactly, is the problem. These occupiers are not interested in balance.
This occupation wants its way. And only its way. Not compromise. They are a large, violent toddler thrashing about on the kitchen floor of our democracy. “Give it to me, or I will break shit,” they are telling us. They don’t care about me or anyone else in downtown Ottawa.
They don’t care about you, or anyone who disagrees with them. They want *it*. And they will smash stuff, people, and institutions until they get it. And that is what they are doing. With each thrash of their chubby, spoiled, toddler limbs, they are chipping away at us all.
Which brings us to the cries for toleration and appeasement. Those cries are cowardly nonsense. It’s basic to democratic principles that you need to be tolerant of widely divergent views. It’s essential. But…
It’s vital to understand that the one thing that cannot be tolerated is intolerance, itself. Democratic governance breaks apart when intolerance takes over. It needs to be stamped out, marginalized, disregarded. It should not be given centre stage and the keys to the city.
Which is what we have done. Almost literally. Our officials have cleared out the kitchen to make as much room as possible for the rampaging toddler. They are fanning the flames of intolerance by giving it deep, rich oxygen. They are failing us.
Our officials are failing us because they do not understand the limits of the system they safeguard. We have reached those limits. They must begin to push back—hard—or we risk losing it all.”
This is the context we need to make any progress with the gender religious, as most seem to be under the notion that the rights they claim happen to be ‘apex rights’ – in other words gender identity should be given first priority when judging a situation.
They, in fact, are not. And we need to start framing issues of gender identity in the proper context of all the human rights we have in Canada and acknowledge that friction and conflicts do exist and must be discussed.
Sex an Sexual orientation are no less important in society, but the current blitz by the gender religious would have us overlook this key contextual aspect of the debate.
No longer. Like the rest of the adults in society Gender Identity proponents are going to have to learn to compromise and accept that not all their assertions are holy writ and must be accepted in their base form.
No topic in a liberal democratic society should be off the table for reasonable debate. Yet here we are in 2022 with a seasoned educator being silenced and suspended for raising safeguarding concerns over ideological transgender literature being made available to children. Don’t take my word for it. See for yourself.
The studies regarding medical transition are not conclusive, yet here in select transgender children’s literature everything is a-fucking-okay. This is an issue worth discussing in public and in great detail at the *very* least.
“An Ontario school board is facing charges of censorship this week after shutting down a teacher’s presentation to the group, saying her comments about books on transgender issues violated the province’s human rights code
Carolyn Burjoski was discussing publications she said are available in the libraries of Kindergarten to grade six schools. She had begun to argue the books made it seem too simple and “cool” to medically transition to another gender when her presentation was cut short by the Waterloo Region District School Board’s chair.”
Ms. Burjoski’s presentation was about safeguarding children from potentially dangerous medical treatments. Seems reasonable right? (Wrong)
“Scott Piatkowski ruled she could not continue and the board eventually voted 5-4 to back up his decision. The fallout has continued since.
Though controversial and opposed by most transgender advocates, concerns have been voiced before — including by leading figures in the movement itself — that gender-dysphoric young people are sometimes pushed too aggressively into medical transition.
Piatkowski latertold a local CTV station , however, that Burjoski’s comments were actually transphobic and “questioned the right to exist” of trans people. Meanwhile, the organization took down its recording of the meeting — a regular, public session of elected officials — and had YouTube remove another copy of the video for alleged copyright infringement.”
Piatkowski and the Board have taken down the meeting off of youtube, fortunately the meeting recording has appeared elsewhere.
Go here and judge for yourself if *ANYTHING* Ms. Burjoksi says or presents is in the least bit ‘transphobic’ or in violation of the Canadian Human Rights Code (nothing is).
Time Stamp Highlghts:
2:01 – Book called ‘Rick’ – That is about why Rick doesn’t think about naked girls. He goes to a ‘rainbow club’ and identifies as ‘asexual’. Counterpoint – Maybe Rick doesn’t have sexual feelings yet because Rick is a child. Also a book that sexualizes and objectifies girls might not be appropriate reading for young girls (ed. or really *any* educational setting)
2:59 – The first warning from Piatkowski directed at Ms. Burjoski on the unfounded basis of her presentation somehow being against the Ontario Human Rights Code.
3:55 – Book called ‘Shane’ – The main character dismisses the very real consequences of being sterilized. The book also makes medical transition seem like an easy cure to emotional and social distress. (ed. it most certainly is not).
4:16 – Ms. Burjoski shut down by Chair Piatkowski for alleged breach of Ontario Human Rights Code.
Watch the whole thing, but like any zoom meeting its disjointed and frustrating to watch especially when those who value critical analysis and freedom of speech are shut down.
There is nothing wrong with the board’s policies. They accurately reflect the requirements of the Human Rights Code and the case law interpreting it. The problem is the Board’s interpretation.
The Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination in the employment, housing and the provision of services on prohibited grounds of discrimination which include “race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability.”
It also prohibits harassment in employment or housing. Harassment “means engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.” The board’s human rights policy elaborates on this definition and explains that harassment consists of conduct directed at an individual such as insults, epithets, persistent teasing and offensive jokes based on a protected characteristic. Nothing in Ms. Burjoski’s presentation could possibly fit this definition.
The Ontario Code does not attempt to regulate speech in general. Section 13 prohibits publication of a “notice, sign, symbol or emblem” that indicates an expression to discriminate but it is subject to a proviso that it shall not interfere with freedom of expression.”
Yeah… So it would seem that these ‘human rights violations’ are really just important and valid concerns with gender ideology that desperately need to be discussed in context of their application in Public Schools.
Also Ms. Burjoski was then summarily excommunicated from her staff and students for her heretical statements.
“And then the teacher was given what she calls a “stay-at-home order” and told not to communicate with colleagues or students, though she’s still being paid and is slated to retire soon. On Thursday, she says her union rep informed her the board had appointed an outside investigator to examine her actions.”
Yep. Did you think that freedom of speech is a valued tenet of our society? Try speaking out against the gender-religion and see how far you get. Suspended in Burjoski’s case for wanting to discuss the appropriateness of sexualizing children and child safeguarding against still largely experimental medical gender therapies.
“In her first interview on the affair, Burjoski said she was “flabbergasted” by what happened at the meeting and Piatkowski’s remarks afterward
“I am not a transphobic person. It’s crazy that just because you ask a question, the first thing people do is call you that,” she said. “We do need to have a conversation about the intersection of biology and gender. We’re not having those conversations in our culture because, look what happened to me.”
She said the order to stay away from school was likely meant to make an example of her: “The message is clear: no dissent is allowed.”
No ideology is above reproach and measured critique by members of a free and open society, yet here we are watching a teacher be excommunicated for questioning the transgender doctrine in the context of prioritizing the safety of children.
If you are not asking questions about what transgender ideology is and how it affects children (and society) it is time to start. How many more people are we going to let be silenced in the name of transgender orthodoxy? Thankfully Ms. Burjoski is not going quietly. Support her legal fund as she fights not to be silenced for making valid criticisms of a potentially pernicious ideology.
“A Canadian medical researcher who rose to become the nation’s top voice on indigenous health has been ousted from her government job and her university professorship — after suspicious colleagues investigated her increasingly fanciful claims of Native American heritage and learned she was a fraud.”
“Far from being a member of the Métis nation, as she had long claimed, a laborious trace of Bourassa’s family tree revealed that her supposedly indigenous ancestors were in fact immigrant farmers who hailed from Russia, Poland, and Czechoslovakia.
Wheeler, a documented member of Manitoba’s Fisher River Cree Nation, started digging into Bourassa’s genealogical records — and took her findings to the media.
But when pressed to provide evidence of Native American heritage, Bourassa suddenly changed her story — saying that she had been adopted into the Métis community by an unnamed Métis friend of her deceased grandfather, Clifford Laroque.
“Even though Clifford passed, those bonds are even deeper than death because the family has taken me as if I was their blood family,” she insisted in a statement. “In turn, I serve the Métis community to the best of my ability.”
“Wheeler said the fact that the letter advocates sidelining genealogical proof is alarming at a time when Indigenous people are fighting for their rights and their land.
“That’s opening the doors to every Tom, Dick and Harry to claim Indigeneity,” she said. “Then suddenly out of the woodwork, everybody’s Indigenous because they feel like it.”
University of Saskatchewan associate professor of Indigenous studies Winona Wheeler says Bourassa’s story is built on a fundamental falsehood. (Chanss Lagaden/CBC)
According to an email from the University of Saskatchewan, if Indigenous identity or experience is required for a role, the university “accepts self-declaration in matters of employment.”
Wheeler said that’s not enough.
“When I apply for an academic job, I have to give them a copy of my certificate for my PhD,” she said. “But if I’m applying for a position that’s targeted only for Indigenous people, I’m not required to provide anything except self-identification. Now that’s lowering standards.”
Smylie said she decided to speak up, despite the risks to her career, because the consequences of continued silence are grave.
“If I was to stay quiet and let somebody who’s an impostor regularly inform the nation and lead the nation like in Indigenous health, then I guess then I wouldn’t [have] earned the right to call myself Métis anymore,” she said. “And that will be the end of our people.”
The discrimination and hatred that transracial individuals receive in Canada is real, and their very existence is being questioned. When will this rampant transracialphobia and marginalization stop?
Is there a better example of how utterly inconsistent and deranged transgender ideology is? Why in the case as ‘someone who identifies as Indigenous’ is lambasted in the press and yet, somehow a man can identify as a woman and all is well in the world (it really isn’t).
Like, come on CBC, either self identification all the time or none of the time – it can’t just be for men who think they are women. You should be championing Bourassa’s case not denigrating her and questioning her ‘validity’. So what if the established facts of the matter point to the exact opposite of her identity claims? How can we not endorse Bourassa while tirelessly advocating for men to freely claim womanhood because they self-identify as such?
What is the metric you are using to promote one aspect of self-id, but not the other?
Asking for the female population of Canada that is being erased in Canadian society through the wildly inappropriate application of gender identity laws.
What is ad block? It is an application that, at your discretion blocks out advertising so you can browse the internet for content as opposed to ads. If you do not have it, get it here so you can enjoy my blog without the insidious advertising.
Exploring best practice and research in sexual violence. A loud voice in the fight against victim blaming. Written and Managed by Psychologist and Best Selling Author Dr Jessica Taylor
I agree with Tim’s analysis of what is going on in Ottawa and in Alberta. People are circumventing the ways that make a functioning democracy work, and it should be a serious concern to everyone.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…