You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Canadian Politics’ tag.
Collin May has published a long, ambitious essay in the C2C journal (Hearts of Darkness: How the Left Uses Hate to Fuel its 21st Century Universal Imperium) on cancel culture, “hate” rhetoric, and the modern left’s moral posture. It is broader than I would write, more philosophical than most readers will tolerate, and occasionally overbuilt. But it names a pattern that matters, and one I return to often here: once “hate” becomes a universal accusation, institutions stop persuading and start policing.
May’s most useful contribution is not just the complaint (“cancel culture exists”) but the mechanism: “hate” stops being a moral description and becomes a category that pre-sorts who may be argued with and who may simply be managed.
That is the issue.
Not whether hatred exists. It does. Not whether some speech is vicious. It is. The issue is what happens when “hate” becomes the default label for disagreement, skepticism, refusal, dissent, or plain moral and factual judgments that cut against elite narratives.
At that point, the term stops describing and starts doing administrative work.
You can watch this happen across the institutions that shape public life: media, HR departments, professional bodies, universities, bureaucracies, and the expanding quasi-legal space around speech regulation. The sequence is familiar. Someone raises a concern about policy, ideology, language rules, school programming, medical ethics, public safety, immigration, religion, or sex-based rights. Instead of answering the argument, the institution reframes the speaker. Not wrong—harmful. Not questioning—spreading hate. Not participating in democratic friction—a threat to social order.
That move changes the rules of engagement. A wrong claim can be debated. A “hateful” claim can be quarantined. Once a claim is reclassified as harm rather than argument, the institutional response changes with it: less rebuttal, more restriction.
This language matters because it is not only moral language. It is managerial language. It justifies deplatforming, censorship, professional discipline, reputational destruction, and exclusion from ordinary civic legitimacy. It creates a class of people whose arguments no longer need to be answered on the merits. It also trains bystanders to confuse moral panic with moral seriousness.
May explains this through a large historical and philosophical genealogy. Fair enough. I am less interested in the full genealogy than in the practical result in front of us. In plain terms: the rhetoric of “hate” is often used to centralize authority in institutions that no longer trust the public and no longer feel obliged to reason with them.
That is one reason trust keeps collapsing.
People can live with disagreement. They can even live with policies they dislike. What they do not tolerate for long is being handled—being told their questions are illegitimate before they are heard. Once citizens conclude that institutions are using moral language as a shield against scrutiny, every future statement gets discounted. Even true statements are heard as spin.
And then the damage compounds. If “hate” is defined so broadly that it includes dissent, genuinely hateful speech becomes harder to identify and confront. The category gets inflated, politicized, and cheapened. Meanwhile, ordinary democratic disagreement becomes harder to conduct without professional or social risk.
That is not a confident free society. It is a managerial one.
Canada is not exempt. We have our own versions of this habit: speech debates reframed as safety debates, policy criticism recoded as identity harm, and public disputes (including over schools, sex-based rights, and even routine civic rituals like land acknowledgements) routed through tribunals, regulators, HR offices, and media scripts instead of open argument. The details vary by case. The mechanism does not. This tactic is not unique to one political tribe, but it is now especially entrenched in progressive-managerial institutions, which is precisely why it has so much reach.
The answer is not to deny hatred exists, or to become casual about cruelty. The answer is to recover civic discipline.
Name actual incitement when it occurs. Enforce existing laws where there are real threats, harassment, or violence. But stop using “hate” as a catch-all for disfavoured views. Stop treating condemnation as a substitute for evidence. Stop teaching institutions that the way to win an argument is to disqualify the speaker.
May quotes Pope Francis on cancel culture as something that “leaves no room.” Whether or not one follows his full historical argument, that phrase captures the operational problem.
A liberal society cannot function if citizens are only permitted to disagree inside moral boundaries drawn in advance by bureaucrats, activists, and legacy media.
The test is simple: can a claim be examined without first being moralized into silence?
If the answer is no, that is not moral confidence. It is institutional insecurity backed by power.
That is the pattern worth naming. And that is why essays like May’s, even when they overshoot, remain worth reading.
References
Collin May, “Hearts of Darkness: How the Left Uses Hate to Fuel its 21st Century Universal Imperium,” C2C Journal (February 16, 2026), https://c2cjournal.ca/2026/02/hearts-of-darkness-how-the-left-uses-hate-to-fuel-its-21st-century-universal-imperium/. (C2C Journal)
Canada’s treaty relationship with Indigenous peoples is in crisis — not because Canadians don’t care, but because the way we currently honour those obligations is dysfunctional, opaque, and increasingly divisive. The federal government now spends nearly $24 billion per year on Indigenous services, up from about $13 billion in 2019–20, according to the Auditor General of Canada (OAG report). Yet outcomes in many communities have barely moved. Infrastructure failures persist. Unsafe drinking water advisories continue. And trust on all sides is eroding.
We are reaching a dangerous moment: if nothing changes, Canadians may not merely resent the system — they may begin to reject treaty obligations altogether. That would be a national disaster, morally and politically. We need a new approach that is fair, transparent, and results-driven.
So here is a trial balloon: a voluntary, 100-year “Treaty Modernization Agreement” that pays out treaty obligations in a structured, accountable, measurable way — while helping Indigenous communities build long-term economic sovereignty instead of permanent dependency.
This isn’t abolition. It isn’t assimilation. It’s modernization — and it might be the only path that prevents a complete breakdown of goodwill in the decades ahead.
A Simple Vision: A Century of Commitment, Delivered Honestly
Imagine treaties not as open-ended entitlement but as a 100-year contract: transparent funding, rising early when needs are greatest, tapering later as communities grow stronger.
Here’s what such a plan could look like:
1. A Guaranteed Base Payment for All Members
Every band member would receive an annual $1,000–$2,000 inflation-adjusted payment, routed directly to individuals. But band governments must publish transparent financial reports — online, accessible, and clear — to unlock the full amount. This is basic fiscal hygiene, not paternalism.
2. Bonuses for Measurable Success
Communities that achieve agreed-upon goals — clean water for all residents, higher high-school graduation rates, better youth employment, successful community-run businesses — would receive up to 50% more funding.
These aren’t colonial metrics. They’re Indigenous success metrics already visible in places like:
- Osoyoos Indian Band, known for its award-winning winery and economic diversification
- Fort McKay First Nation, where resource partnerships have delivered 98% employment
- Westbank First Nation, a leader in self-government and transparent governance
Evidence shows what works. This plan would reward it.
3. Safeguards Against Corruption and Waste
If independent audits or RCMP investigations uncover mismanagement, community-level funding temporarily drops to the guaranteed base. Proven diverted funds would go straight to families, bypassing leaders.
This isn’t punitive. It’s protection — for ordinary Indigenous citizens who suffer most when money disappears into bureaucratic fog.
4. A 100-Year Sunset (With Renewal)
The agreement would run from 2025 to 2125. In that century, Canada commits to fulfilling treaty obligations through:
- Upfront investment in infrastructure
- Predictable annual payments
- Transparent reporting
- Bonuses for success
At 2125, the arrangement can be renewed voluntarily. Nothing is extinguished. But nothing drifts forever, either.
5. Indigenous-Led Oversight
A new Indigenous-majority Treaty Accountability Commission would handle:
- auditing
- performance metrics
- transparency
- dispute resolution
This keeps Ottawa honest — something many Indigenous leaders rightly insist upon.
Why Change Is Necessary: The Status Quo Is Failing Everyone
Canada’s existing system is massively expensive, poorly coordinated, and shockingly ineffective.
Billions Spent, Little Progress
The Auditor General has repeatedly found that Indigenous Services Canada has not made satisfactory progress on key issues like health services, emergency management, or infrastructure (OAG report).
Even after years of promises, long-term drinking water advisories remain. In 2024, ISC acknowledged 28 active long-term advisories still affecting 26 communities (ISC report).
Procurement Concerns and Fraud Risks
Federal documents show ongoing concerns about weak verification of Indigenous procurement claims and ongoing vulnerability to fraud in contracting (ISC procurement update). Even ISC itself acknowledges that better integrity controls are needed.
Systemic Fragmentation
Parliamentary debates and committee reports consistently point out that treaty and program obligations are scattered across many federal departments, creating delay, duplication, and confusion (House of Commons debate).
In other words: no one is truly accountable.
Political Backlash Is Growing
Many Canadians are becoming skeptical about endless spending that produces weak results. This is dangerous. Without reform, public support for treaties — already strained — could collapse. That would harm Indigenous peoples first and most, and invite an ugly political reaction.
We must fix the system while we still have the national goodwill to do it.
Addressing Indigenous Concerns Honestly
A plan of this scale cannot be imposed. It must be voluntary and co-developed.
“Are you sunsetting treaty rights?”
No.
Treaty rights under Section 35 remain intact. This is a modernization of the cash obligation, not a constitutional extinguishment.
“Are bonuses a colonial imposition?”
No.
The performance indicators would be co-designed with Indigenous nations. Many First Nations already track their Community Well-Being Index and publish governance data. This rewards success on their terms.
“Can we trust Ottawa?”
Not without structural reform — which is exactly why this plan builds in Indigenous-majority oversight and transparent fund-tracking.
“Will this require more legal work?”
Yes. Much more.
Legislative design, oversight creation, financial modelling, and treaty-by-treaty negotiation will take years. But the alternative — drifting deeper into dysfunction — is far worse.
Why a 100-Year Plan Is the Only Sustainable Path
A century may sound long. But the truth is that the current system is infinite — infinite spending, infinite dependency, infinite frustration.
A 100-year Treaty Modernization Agreement offers:
- certainty for taxpayers
- predictability for Indigenous communities
- transparency for everyone
- a path toward long-term economic sovereignty
Most importantly, it reduces the risk that rising resentment will one day lead Canadians to reject treaties entirely. That would be catastrophic.
A modern, accountable, results-based agreement is not abandonment — it’s the opposite. It’s a chance to finally make good on Canada’s commitments, in a way that improves outcomes and preserves national unity.
If Indigenous communities want self-determination, and Canadians want accountability, then this is the kind of bold, honest conversation we need to start having.
Final Thought
We can either keep drifting toward mutual bitterness, or we can build a transparent, predictable 100-year plan that lifts communities up and restores trust.
This proposal is a trial balloon — not a final blueprint. It requires co-development, legal negotiation, financial modelling, and a lot of listening.
But doing nothing is no longer an option. Canada needs a sustainable treaty future. Indigenous peoples deserve real results. And our children deserve a country where reconciliation means something more than hashtags and hollow spending.
This is a way forward. It’s not perfect. But it’s a start — and we desperately need one.
It’s been weird over in twitterland regarding Canadian politics as of late. The amount of furor and nasty partisan attacks going both ways seem to have intensified – people are doubling and tripling down on their hills to die on. I’m not sure as to exactly why, but here’s an example. This is a attack by a self identified Liberal supporter in Canada.
It is my understanding that one part of the Left’s body politic is this small topic called “Feminism”. One of the things that Feminists point to and try to move society away from is judging women by their looks. “Vicki” not only does this, but then further extrapolates what Pierre Poilievre ‘s wife’s motivations are. Her name is Anaida Poilievre which never seems to be mentioned – another little detail that would rankle most authentic feminists as believe it or not women exist outside of their relationships to men. But treating women as subjects as opposed to objects seems to be a bridge too far for Vicki in her blind rage against all things Pierre Poilievre.
I would be concerned if I was part of the Liberal tribe because how you treat your political enemies reflects on no one but yourself, and letting unhinged partisan hackery slip into outright misogyny isn’t a flattering perception to demonstrate in the public sphere.
At one time I thought that perhaps the level of Canadian political discourse was a little less divisive and partisan – at least compared to our neighbours down south – I was wrong.
Greetings my fellow Canadians. I need you to take action on the the bill that is before the Canadian Parliament :Bill C-8.
Why Bill C-8 will be harmful to children and parental rights –
“Under the guise of prohibiting “conversion therapy,” Bill C-8 would make it a criminal offence for parents to help their own gender-confused children find peace in accepting their biological gender.The Liberal government’s proposed legislation, introduced as a First Reading on March 9, defines “conversion therapy” as “a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.”
This proposed House of Commons legislation has the same major flaws that the Senate’s Bill S-202 had, as I argued in 2019. Under C-8, parents could spend up to five years in jail for trying to help their son accept himself as a boy, or for helping their daughter to accept herself as a girl. Bill C-8 also would impose prison terms up to five years for doctors, counsellors, psychiatrists, psychologists and other paid professionals whose treatment for gender confusion departs from politically correct orthodoxy. Parents would be punished if they do anything other than encourage a confused child to “transition” to the opposite gender. Transitioning is an extreme form of intervention that includes taking puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and undergoing permanent surgical sterilization, including the removal of healthy organs such as breasts and testicles.
Bill C-8’s preamble denounces as “myth” that a person’s “gender identity” can and ought to be changed. This ignores reality. Many people – especially some minors – do experience change in their gender identity. Confusion during puberty later resolves in favour of their biological sex. Bill C-8 ignores the leading work of Dr. Kenneth J. Zucker, who for many years was psychologist-in-chief at Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and headed up its Gender Identity Service. An international authority on gender dysphoria in children and adolescents, he and Dr. Susan Bradley helped hundreds of children integrate their gender identity with their biological reality, saving them from a lifetime of dependency on cross-sex hormones. Their work demonstrates that with appropriate therapy and encouragement, the vast majority of gender-confused children come to accept their bodies by the time they reach the age of 18.
“Transitioning” is not the panacea Bill C-8 makes it out to be. For example, a 2011 comprehensive study shows that post-surgery transgender people in Sweden commit suicide at a rate 19 times higher than the national average. Bill C-8 further ignores the rapidly growing number of deeply unhappy and disillusioned people who have “transitioned” genders and are now “detransitioning” back to their biological sex.
If Bill C-8 becomes law, it appears that the only legal treatment available to Canadian youth who struggle with their gender identity will be “transitioning” toward the opposite gender: puberty blockers, opposite-sex hormone injections, and eventually gender-reassignment surgery. The law’s definition of “conversion therapy” still allows for “a practice, treatment or service that relates to a person’s exploration of their identity or to its development,” so there may be some wiggle room. But C-8’s clear prohibition on changing “gender identity” to conform to biological reality, combined with C-8’s preamble declaring that gender identity should never be changed, means that counselling to help a child accept biological reality becomes practically illegal.”
Contact your MP right away and outline your concerns. I’ve talked with my fellow blogger Tildeb and he has given me (and you permission) to use the form of his letter to raise your concerns to your MP. Thank you Tildeb for your contributions in the struggle for a rational approach to gender ideology and safeguarding female rights, boundaries, and safety.
“I am gravely concerned about the inclusion of gender in this proposed Bill [C-8] that criminalizes conversion therapy.
Gender-based scientific research is starkly insufficient and lacking biological knowledge compared to sex-based research. Sex-base research is currently under attack by gender identity ideologues driving researchers out of the field and closing facilities offered by universities. I have grounds to properly fear that this well-intended inclusion in this Bill will be successfully used by gender identity ideologues and activists to threaten those who criticize the role of gender identity as it now stands, criticism like questioning the safety of female inmates from sexual assault by fully intact male inmates – some who have killed children – identifying as women (a deplorable allowance that is currently in place by misguided federal policy), criticism of male encroachment into female spaces like rape centers and domestic abuse shelters whose public funding is stopped when they deny fully intact males from admission, criticism of the encroachment of fully intact males into dominating female sports and using a convenient switch in gender identity to gain the financial rewards and professional advancements from competition, criticism of fully intact males bullying and driving out of business those who provide female only services like waxing. And the list goes on and on and on. You’ve heard these cases. You stay silent in public but surely you must say something in caucus!
By inserting gender identity into outlawing conversion therapy – an unsuccessful therapy intended to alter biologically driven sexual preference for same sex to the opposite sex which sex-based research shows us is both harmful and ineffective – you are enabling ideologues of gender identity politics to not just displace females from female safe spaces with the permission of the legal code (gender advocates can threaten anyone who disagrees with legal censure under this proposed Bill) but gain special access to influence and direct prepubescent children to begin physiological and chemical therapy – in many jurisdictions without the consent or even knowledge of parents – whenever the child indicates any gender questioning – by threatening legal censure of anyone who dares to intervene… including parents!
This Bill is a green light for those who wish to advance gender identity over, and in place of, compelling sex-based scientific research and psychiatric best practices such as Watchful Waiting. The science is being driven underground while the ideology is becoming law!
Why so many politicians agree with these ideologues that biology magically ends at the neck and gender identity takes over, is a modern mystery but by enabling gender ideologues the legal power to suppress criticism in the name of either hate speech or partaking of illegal conversion therapy is a legal and ethical travesty waiting to happen, a travesty any academic who investigates this issue with an open mind and concern for what is true in reality should not endorse.
Please seriously reconsider the inclusion of gender in this Bill.”
In Canada it is easy to see where elite consensus lies. Marijuana legislation is barrelling ahead (potheads rejoice!) and electoral reform is dead in the water and slowly sinking out of the public’s consciousness.
This is how electoral reform died in Canada:
“In response, Trudeau pointed to a difference of opinions among the major political parties.
“As people in this House know, I have long preferred a preferential ballot. The members opposite [in the NDP] wanted proportional representation. The Official Opposition wanted a referendum,” he said, gesturing toward the Conservatives.
“There is no consensus. There is no clear path forward. It would be irresponsible to do something that harms Canada’s stability.”
Later, in response to a question from May, Trudeau expanded on his explanation.
“Anything a prime minister or a government must do must be in the interest of Canada and all Canadians, particularly when it comes to transforming our electoral system. I understand the passion and the intensity with which the member opposite believes in this and many Canadians mirror that passion and that intensity.”
“But there is no consensus, there is no sense of how to do this. And, quite frankly, a divisive referendum, an augmentation of extremist voices in this House, is not what is in the best interests of Canada.”
It is quite odd that ‘building consensus” and “augmentation of extremist voices” were of such a deeply troubling concern to our dear Prime Minister. The Liberal Party currently holds a majority in our House of Commons – 184 seats (14 more than the required 170) – so they can pass whatever damn legislation they choose, at any time, and the opposition can do precisely diddly-squat about it.
Enter the consensus building. Or, to look at things slightly more Machiavellian, why would the government dismantle the electoral system that has brought it to power tweny-four times since the inception of Canada as a nation?
I’m pretty sure that’s all that needs to be said on the issue of electoral reform.
The other half of the story is the legalization of marijuana and that folks is an example, par excellance of Canadian Government policy careening downhill on the greasiest of skids. Nothing is going to stop this fully loaded freight-train of weed goodness. (I have heard nary a whisper of building consensus on this issue – it’s just getting done). From the Liberal Party website –
” Canada’s current system of marijuana prohibition does not work. It does not prevent young people from using marijuana and too many Canadians end up with criminal records for possessing small amounts of the drug.
Arresting and prosecuting these offenses is expensive for our criminal justice system. It traps too many Canadians in the criminal justice system for minor, non-violent offenses. At the same time, the proceeds from the illegal drug trade support organized crime and greater threats to public safety, like human trafficking and hard drugs.
To ensure that we keep marijuana out of the hands of children, and the profits out of the hands of criminals, we will legalize, regulate, and restrict access to marijuana.
We will remove marijuana consumption and incidental possession from the Criminal Code, and create new, stronger laws to punish more severely those who provide it to minors, those who operate a motor vehicle while under its influence, and those who sell it outside of the new regulatory framework.”
Oh the principled anguish!
I’m not buying it for a second. The legality of marijuana is a trivial issue. It will not affect those in the halls of power one iota. And, thus we have this great commitment and expressed vigour to helping all Canadians and making things better for the country. (Clearly, reforming the skewed FPP electoral system won’t benefit Canadians or the country…)
“OTTAWA — The Canadian government has introduced sweeping legislation designed to permit the recreational use of marijuana throughout the country by July 2018, fulfilling an election promise by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
The bill, inspired in part by the experiences of cannabis regimes in Colorado and Washington state, goes well beyond the U.S. situation, where marijuana remains prohibited at the federal level. In Canada, the federal government will change criminal law nationally and will license growers and set product standards while leaving it up to the provinces to handle distribution and manage retail sale.
Canada will become the first large industrialized nation with a broad system permitting recreational as well as medical use of marijuana. At present, only Uruguay has a national legal regime permitting widespread use of cannabis.”
*sigh* – Oh, Canada. :/
Well, nearly quoted the whole damn article, but so very important. Go to the national observer for the rest.
“In Wednesday’s House of Commons debate on Bill C-16, also known as the Transgender Rights Bill, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, who introduced the legislation back in May, explained:
“Gender identity is a person’s internal or individual experience of their gender. It is a deeply felt experience of being a man, a woman, or being somewhere along the gender spectrum. Gender expression is how a person publicly presents their gender. It is an external or outward presentation through aspects such as dress, hair, makeup, body language, or voice.”
But these statements show a deep misunderstanding of what gender is and how it works. Gender is a product of patriarchy. Ideas around masculinity and femininity exist to naturalize men’s domination and women’s subordination. In the past, women were said to be too irrational, emotional, sensitive, and weak to engage in politics and public life. Men were (and often still are) said to be inherently violent, which meant things like marital rape and domestic abuse were accepted as unavoidable facts of life. “Boys will be boys,” is the old saying that continues to be applied to excuse the predatory, violent, or otherwise sexist behaviour of males.
The feminist movement began back in the late 1800s in protest of these ideas, and continues today on that basis. The idea that gender is something internal, innate, or chosen — expressed through superficial and stereotypical means like hairstyles, clothing, or body language — is deeply regressive.
Beyond misguided language there is the fact that we are very quickly pushing through legislation that conflicts with already established rights and protections for women and girls.
Women’s spaces — including homeless shelters, transition houses, washrooms, and change rooms — exist to offer women protection from men. It isn’t men who fear that women might enter their locker rooms and flash, harass, assault, abuse, photograph, or kill them… This reality is often left unaddressed in conversations around gender identity. This reality is sex-based, not identity-based. Men cannot identify their way out of the oppressor class so easily, neither can women simply choose to identify their way out of vulnerability to male violence.”
[…]
As unpopular as this fact has become, a man or boy who wishes to identify as a woman or girl, perhaps taking on stereotypically feminine body language, hairstyles, and clothing, is still male. He still has male sex organs, which means girls and women will continue to see him as a threat and feel uncomfortable with his presence in, say, change rooms. Is it now the responsibility of women and girls to leave their own spaces if they feel unsafe? Are teenage girls obligated to overcome material reality lest they be accused of bigotry? Is the onus on women to suddenly forget everything they know and have experienced with regard to sexual violence, sexual harassment, and the male gaze simply because one individual wishes to have access to the female change room? Because one boy claims he “feels like a girl on the inside?” And what does that mean, anyway?
Generally, the claim that one “feels” like the opposite sex “on the inside” is connected to a list of sexist gender stereotypes: a boy likes dolls and dresses, a girl plays with trucks and cuts her hair short, a man enjoys wearing pantyhose and getting manicures, etc… There is no scientific foundation for the idea that sex is defined by a “feeling” or by superficial choices. One cannot, in fact, “feel” like a man or a woman “on the inside,” because sex is something that simply exists. It is a neutral fact. Aside from having a mental condition like body dysmorphic disorder, the only reason one could claim not to “feel” like the sex they are, biologically, is because they identify with the gender roles assigned to the opposite sex. Key word: assigned.
It is unlikely any of us feel comfortable with the restrictive roles we are socialized into as men or women. Certainly those who step out of those roles are punished viciously, and that includes trans identified people. But that problem is a social one, and the solution is not to reinforce sexist ideas about gender, but to push back against the idea of gender itself – that is to say, the idea that males and females have innate behaviours and preferences they are born with. As feminists and progressives, we should challenge the idea that superficial things like clothing, toys, makeup, or mannerisms define us.
We live in a time when women and girls are killed every day, across the globe, by men. Things like rape, domestic abuse, and the murder of Indigenous women and girls in Canada are still not considered hate crimes. Yet we have managed to push through legislation that may very well equate “misgendering” to hate speech.
Women are protected under the human rights code on the basis that we are, as a group, discriminated against on account of our biology. Employers still choose not to hire women based on the assumption that they will become pregnant. Women are still fighting to have access to women-only spaces (including washrooms and locker rooms) in male-dominated workplaces like fire departments, in order to escape sexual harassment and assault.
Legislation and policies that protect “gender identity and expression” unfortunately set up a clash between women’s rights and those who identify as transgender. There are solutions. It was not always the norm, for example, that public buildings had to be accessible for people with disabilities. It is perfectly reasonable to expect public buildings to install private gender-neutral washrooms and change rooms for people who don’t wish to use either the women’s or the men’s room. We can effect change and ensure people have access to the services and support they need without imposing on already established and still very much needed rights of women and girls.
Women are socialized, from the time they are born, to prioritize the feelings and comfort of everyone else but themselves. We learn that our boundaries will not be respected by men, as we are talked over, leered at, cat called, groped, and raped. Girls’ images are constantly being shared electronically by boys and men alike, against their will. There is a real fear that images of our bodies will be put online in order to exploit and degrade us.
Our fears of men are justified, proven over and over again to be (sadly) rational, not irrational. That is something that needs to be respected, not treated as bigoted or hysterical. Society has disregarded women’s feelings, concerns, and safety for long enough.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…