Stepping into the issue slightly, it becomes interesting. Ignoring the trans element, for now.
There’s an interested debate here about parent’s rights to choose how to parent. Now we as a civilization have decided that there are red lines that parents cannot cross. An extreme example: parents cannot beat their children as punishment. And there’s a lot of not-quite-illegal things the government does a lot of education around, like drinking during pregnancy, in order to improve the quality of parenting and the quality of life for children. So government intervention in parenting is already, largely established – at least when it comes to certain topics.
The government, however, does not intervene as parents take their kids to “Sunday School” and indoctrinate them (oops, my own experiences and biases are showing). And generally, parents are allowed full control over their children’s lives unless they cross that red line. Few parents exhibit full control, micromanaging every aspect of their child’s life, but they probably could and be in the clear, legally – at least when the child is in their physical proximity.
Abstractly: schools, and specifically public schools, are not parents. They have to follow a set of rules set by society at large. And largely, aside from educating the students, they serve as a means to prepare students to become functioning members of that same society. This means that schools need to enforce some sort of public normalization on the students – the exact form of which should reflect the society the students will enter, more or less. Optimally, they’re preparing students for a society that will exist in the future, not the one that exists today, or one that existed in the past, but it’s hard sometimes to know what that future will look like. You take some best guesses about this future society.
So now we have the conflict between the individual and the society. A parent yields some control when sending their kid to a public school, in the hopes that they will become a productive member of society. And this debate is about exactly how much control is yielded. And this debate is in many ways a core debate for our whole country - one of which can encompass residential schools, multiculturalism, religion, and more. Sometimes the guesses made about future society are off the mark, and what is intended to be a policy for good turns into a policy that was retrospectively harmful. We won’t know until the future arrives.
But then the discussion gets completely overwhelmed by transphobic dogwhistling, and the resulting backlash, hiding the core of it.
Great post. I would add that it’s also a debate on the nature of what it means to be a parent, of the relationship of a child to their parent, and minors’ status as a legal person. The conservative view sees children as the property of their parents whose will overrides any preferences of the child, whereas the left is increasingly moving towards the idea that children are an autonomous person with agency and rights that supersede the wishes of the parent. It seems that a lot of parents take issue with that fact, as I’m sure many do with the fact that they are no longer “allowed” to beat their children.
Yes, there’s definitely a core of this element here. At one point in time, women were legally the chattel property of their husbands. Do you own a child like you own a pet? Is sending your kid to school like sending your dog to doggie daycare?
Quoting one of my favourite sci fi writers, Becky Chambers (in: A Closed and Common Orbit) – an alien reflecting on humanity:
“At the core, you’ve got to get university certification for parenting, just as you do for, say, being a doctor or an engineer. No offence to you or your species, but going into the business of creating life without any sort of formal prep is . . .’ He laughed. ‘It’s baffling. But then, I’m biased.”
Becky Chambers! Now that’s a crossover I didn’t expect here. Love her work.
To push the analogy to its breaking point, it was also used to justify slavery and is still used to justify mistreatment of animals.
I think this ultimately all stems from a lack of empathy, which I consider a foundation of conservatism – the indifference to the fact that one’s desires may not align with the preferences of the person to whom they are directed.
Sample bias, probably. We nerds are the early adopters. ;)
A couple of communities on server that might be interesting to you, one of them of my own creation: Futurism@lemmy.ca, PrintSF
a lack of empathy, which I consider a foundation of conservatism
It’s probably at least one vector. Religion is another one. The ironic thing, of course, is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. But it’s hard to teach empathy through rote memorization of a text that hasn’t been updated in nearly 2000 years. Knowing the words, and living the words, are two different things. And even then, many of the words are out of date (pork is delicious!).
The ironic thing, of course, is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
Not that ironic if the parents’ views genuinely differ from their child’s. The parent can be homophobic and genuinely see it as an abhorrent thing that should be remedied.
This is the scary thing about conservatism/religion. It gives people the tools, through an absolutist and precsriptivist system of beliefs, to otherize people, and rationalize away the empathy that they do feel. Or perhaps use their empathy to justify doing horrible things to someone “for their own good”, like the parent trying to remedy their child’s “abhorrent behaviour” for example.
TBH, I try to give my pets as much autonomy as is safe for them. E.g., they're going to the vet whether they want to or not if they're sick. But I try to let them decide when they want attention, and what kind of attention and interaction they want, rather than forcing them. They seem to be happier that way.
I also don't worry about training them, because they're all cats.
You’re missing the point by focusing on function of the players involved. Policies that protect trans students are ultimately rooted in risk assessment. There are risks to personal safety if someone is outed facing an unsafe environment at home. And to wellbeing and, ultimately, personal safety again if someone is forced to live as a gender they don’t identify with. These risks, on both sides, are drastically reduced by offering a safe space and support in being who you are. The delineation of responsibility between parents and schools in preparing kids for their lives is separate from how to best offer support for the safety and well being of queer kids.
People keep saying “protect trans students” but what does that functionally mean? They get higher care/priority over other students getting bullied? Can you explain what it means exactly? It all seems very vague and needlessly divisive if you ask me.
These aren’t vague points at all. I mean, it’s understandable if you aren’t aware of the elevated suicide rates among trans people and the impact of gender affirmation in suicide prevention in that regard, the body of literature supporting that isn’t all that accessible to lay people, but surely you’re not ignorant to the fact that someone else brought up in this very thread, that parents can abuse kids for being trans (or just queer in general), and if someone doesn’t feel safe being out at home, there’s usually a reason… right?
No one is saying that trans kids should take priority over other kids who are “getting bullied”, that’s missing the point by a wide mark. Maybe you didn’t intend it, but you’re sealioning here, the answers you’re asking for are already available to you in this very discussion. Creating a safe environment for kids isn’t some zero sum game. Advocating for trans students isn’t about making them a “higher priority” over other kids. Frankly, approaching issues like that is what creates division, not advocacy and acceptance.
Why would a kid come out to a teacher when they didn’t tell their parent?
Only reason I can think of is because the kid is afraid of their parents. Why would that be?
So this is all about parents wanting to beat the trans out of their kids. This is about enabling child abuse.
Of course kids aren’t that stupid. They’ll know that they now have to keep these kinds of things from their teachers the same as they’re keeping it from their parents.
It’ll just make kids not trust school staff anymore. Child abuse will be under reported. Child molestation will be under reported. Kids will be less willing to talk to guidance counsellors. Teenage suicide rates will increase.
Blaine Higgs is the biggest enabler of child abuse, child molestation, child suicide in all of Canada right now.
Why would a kid come out to a teacher when they didn’t tell their parent?
Only reason I can think of is because the kid is afraid of their parents
Seen this second hand via my partner who’s a teacher. The parents eventually found out and suddenly the kid wasn’t trans anymore. Can’t imagine why that would be.
Over the summer, Stefanson’s PC government faced a wave of protests in Winnipeg, later spreading across the country and even receiving international attention, over its refusal to search Winnipeg’s landfill for the remains of Morgan Harris and Marcedes Myran — two Indigenous women believed to be victims of an alleged serial killer charged with their murders last year.
Winnipeg’s police chief previously stated that investigators believe their remains are at a local landfill where the body of another woman, believed murdered by the same alleged serial killer, was recovered last summer.
What a piece of shit. But indigenous people aren't people to conservatives, of course.
Exactly it’s completely fucking ridiculous that 16 years old are legally able to pay for taxes, drive a car. But can’t legally be allowed to vote until they are 18.
A 16 year old and 18 year old both have the same level of maturity. So if 18 years old are allowed to vote then I think 16 year old should also legally be allowed to vote.
Even still I don’t see any difference at all between a 16-year-old and a 18 year old. So they should have the right to vote in my opinion because 16 years old are already driving cars and paying for taxes in Canada.
To be fair, some 15 year olds are just as mature as some 19 year olds. Are you saying 15 year olds should be able to buy smokes and drink? In Canada a 16 year old cannot drive a car without another licensed driver sitting beside them as well, so that’s not a good comparison.
Maybe 16 year olds should be tax-exempt until they are old enough to vote :)
True a 16 year old can’t drive without a another valid driver’s license sitting beside them in Canada but it’s still does not change the fact that a 16 year old driving a car even with another licensed driver beside is still extremely dangerous because there is still that chance they could get in to a car accident and die.
As far my opinion on if 15 year should be able to legally be allowed to smoke or drink. I think l that if a 15 year old understand the long term social ramifications of smoking and drinking and still chose to not care about the potential risk that can happen as result of them smoking or drinking then it’s morally okay for them to smoke or drink in my opinion.
I believe everything to be morally neutral unless I am given a valid reason for it to be morally wrong.
I do not get my morals from the law or from a religious book.
15 year olds should absolutely not be legally allowed to drink and smoke. Knowing the detriments of vices does not shield one from the immense peer pressure young people need to deal with. Not to mention that the long term financial burden of supporting sick or hospitalized people is on an older, ideally healthier, generation.
If you ideally want a healthier generation. it would be better if crigrites, alcohol and all recreational drugs are illegal in Canada so that we wouldn’t have to deal with the long-term financial burden of supporting sick or hospitalized people.
And I think parents that overfeed their child with alot of food everyday are morally a bad person and should be put in prison for child abuse in my opinion because childern 13 and under do not know the long term social ramifications of obesity. They don’t know that they could potentially get a heart attack and die if they continue to stuff their face with food everyday.
Because if he passed meaningful reform, there would never be another Liberal majority. They’d prefer to exchange majorities with the CPC every few years, than to denied exclusive access to the levers of power for ever.
if he passed meaningful reform, there would never be another Liberal majority.
Unless an actual majority of Canadians supported a single party, we would not see another majority government. This is horrid for the two leading parties because they don’t get to act as dictators for four years at a time, but would be wonderful for the health of the nation.
I heard about this when it was just a zany little private member's bill in the senate. The kind that represents such an obviously bad idea that it couldn't possibly go anywhere. And now it's passed second reading in the house of commons. The entire fucking NDP voted in favour. So did the Conservatives. So did some Liberals. I'm about ready to completely give up on politics in Canada.
It appears that some people who know how to get what they want out of the average government would prefer that we all be made to verify our identity (just like they continue to try and get everyone to do on the new Twitter) before being allowed to use anything so dangerous as pornography or social media.
Knowing when you’re in over your head, completely stressed out, and will not be able to do the job required is probably one of the most adult things you can do.
If you grew up near that culture and are aware of the history and have empathy for their struggle, do you not see how unhelpful and unnecessarily pedantic your response to an understanably frustrated and fed up post is?
If a good portion of the majority oppressing you is invested in keeping you disempowered and often actively attacking you, would you feel the need to painstakingly qualify your outrage/desperation? Maybe put your ego aside and spend more energy trying to be a part of the solution, and less on whatever you think you’re doing here
Canadian Conservative Election Strategy. (With a one line foreword from Ont. Pmr. Douglas Ford):
"Buck a beer, folks!"
Make various other vague promises and shallow plans.
Announce feel-good statements with no policy to back it: "We believe in strong Canadian [insert who you’re talking to]"
Use this to answer any question you don’t want to actually answer.
"We’ll make the government more efficient by cutting taxes and waste!"
Talk about the opposition party, their leader and their policies with a scowl, more than about your own policies.
Shut the extremist MPs and MPPs up, best you can.
Avoid acknowledging xenophobic movements that form a significant part of the party’s voter base. Don’t disinclude them when talking about vague ideas like “common sense”. ;)
Wait to announce corporate enrichment schemes, environmental destruction and freedom restricting (for women, transfolk and the poor) policies until after you are elected.
What the fresh hell is 2 and S? I thought after the plus sign we agreed NO MORE LETTERS. And dont think I dont see you trying to get cheeky with a number.
Even people adding stripes to the flag are missing the point. A rainbow is a spectrum. You’re already in there.
Yeah yeah yeah, the very initial intent was one-to-one, but then they dropped a color from that flag, because they couldn’t get fabric in the right color. That didn’t mean the group was kicked out!
Imagine being such a stupid twat that you join the party who wants to eradicate you, just because they say nasty things about other people you don’t like.
At least, that’s the only logical explanation I can think of why anyone trans would want to be a conservative. Maybe they’re rich or have an inheritance they don’t want taxed? I guess I’m also viewing this through the lens of conservatives in my country and the US. But I just do not see what a conservative party in 2023 has to offer anyone who is LGBT. They have nothing to offer here but hatred and villification of the ‘other’.
Maybe they’re rich or have an inheritance they don’t want taxed?
Doubt. If that was your concern, you would join the centrist party and use your influence keep them cool on wealth taxes. They might flip some day, but the conservatives don’t need any help.
People are multifaceted beasts that do not run on logic.
There are some LGBT people who are very religious, they vote Conservative.
There are some “Not-like-other-gays” who have survived by showing the bigots around them that they are “one of the good ones”, they vote conservative.
There are some LGBT people who hate “foreigners”, and want to keep them out of their country, they vote Conservative.
And to be a little more Canada-specific:
There are some LGBT people who are so used to everyone being against them that they become convinced of some right-wing conspiracies (like the Canadian trucker “freedom” convoy), they vote Conservative.
There are some LGBT people who rely on making an income from right-wing industries like oil and gas, they vote conservative.
I was very disappointed to see “pro-trucker/anti-vax” shit at pride, and I re-remembered that just because we might’ve fucked the same guy 10 years ago, doesn’t mean we need to be friends
I once heard a couple say they were “old gays” and that everything gay pride stands for is an affront against everything they fought for. While their voting habits weren’t specifically stated, they’re also openly anti-trans and very anti-immigration. I just can’t imagine actually going through that sort of persecution for your identity and wanting to shut the door right behind you.
Thanks, I guess like most people sometimes I really struggle to see through the eyes of others… understanding different modes of thoughts is crucial to everyday life and it’s something I try (and often fail) to do. I appreciate how you’ve laid out those potential thought processes, much appreciated.
There are some LGBT people who rely on making an income from right-wing industries like oil and gas[;] they vote conservative.
Imagine voting for an organization at times racist and xenophobic and cruel, just in the hopes that doing so will perpetuate a dying sector just a little longer while they systematically dismantle everything else that makes us Canada, on the off-chance it’ll also preserve your employer and so you don’t have to go find a job.
I get that times are tough, but “I know they’re cruel and insensitive and will hurt people but my skills aren’t transferable” is going to look bad in hindsight.
Yep. An ex of mine once found herself on a date with another woman who just so happened to be a massive fucking racist. You can bet your ass that that woman is able to ignore the homophobia of conservatives and vote alongside them. And this was in Kentucky not like Massachusetts where the republicans have to temper themselves to get elected. There you’re fine so long as you don’t hurt Kentuckycare or coal. Hate is great at overriding self interests, it’s why authoritarians love to foster it.
canadapolitics
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.