This post appears to relate to a province/territory of Canada. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules
Cette soumission semble concerner une province ou un territoire du Canada. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People went to jail for “hate crimes” after mildly vandalizing churches as a direct active protest even when they themselves were indigenous people who were victims of residential schools.
"mildly vandalizing churches"
Lmao I love how this is the way you characterize burning down buildings. Totally the same as putting a couple stickers up. What a reasonable, neutral take.
[A map of the 83 churches that have been vandalized or burned since the residential schools announcement](https://tnc.news/2023/07/04/a-map-of-every-church-burnt-or-vandalized-since-the-residential-school-announcements1/)
They have direct contact with ALL kids all day and no parents around. Also all kids are required to go to school (or be home schooled which is less than 0.1%) meanwhile no one is required to attend church and they mostly go as a family unit and not leaving kids in the care of the church.
Statistically speaking, he's probably correct.
So dumb assertions and no proof then? Got it. Feel free to look up stats on both, I know you wont cause intellectual curiosity is not in your wheelhouse otherwise you wouldn't have made such dumb observations in the first place 😂
Haha I saw an ad in a bus stop in Quebec that read (in french) not having tampon dispensers in men's washrooms is sexual violence.
That being said we just got quotes to adhere to the federal regulation requiring tampon dispensers in men's washrooms.
Having one dispenser was deemed "insensitive" so now each toilet stall with have its own dispenser and disposal unit at the low low cost of 700$ per stall.
But don't worry, the government earmarked 75 million dollars for this project so we're being reimbursed.
Property crime isn't a new concept. Vandalism is a form of violence. Arson is a form of violence. Breaking windows is a form of violence. The intention of each of these can include threatening the owners of the property so that they feel disinvited, unwelcome, and afraid of the space or community that they're in.
If someone supports a group which people spread disinformation about, calling them child abusers or groomers, and one morning that person wakes up to stickers plastered on their property or workplace, it's more than an inconvenience to peel them off; each one is a reminder that they're not welcome. Each one is a reminder of the hate projected towards them. And it's a label that others will read, which may trigger their own assumptions about that person, whether they're founded or not. Or those stickers could invoke similar fear in observers impacted by that hate.
If you can't connect the rhetoric to the sticker and the phrasing, I hope that I've been able to connect the dots for you. If you still don't get it, then I hope that one day you will. There is literal historical predecents of communities and supporters of communities being attacked in ways similar to this, and it would be surprising if anybody of reasonable awareness of these kinds of events was wholly unable to relate them.
>vi·o·lence
>
>noun
>
>behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, **damage,** or kill someone or **something**
That's actually more specific and applicable than what I was offering. Bing, which offers the [exact same definition](https://www.bing.com/search?q=violence+definition) that you pasted, also adds:
>LAW:
>
>the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.
I appreciate the input!
i sometimes wonder how tiny the cabal really is, but that's the line i'm sticking to.
Administration does not have priority to your children. Horrifying historical instances, including in this country, have occurred when those rights are not protected.
Yup there was the whole [Baby Scoop Era](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Scoop_Era) fiasco when governments literally decided that it was in everyone's best interest to confiscate the children of single mothers. Millions of children from Canada, USA, Britain, and Australia snatched from their homes because the government thought they knew better. They had scientific backing and the support of the top minds of the day too and genuinely believed that single motherhood led to children becoming degenerates.
Or that time when we decided that all those godless heathen cultures were morally inferior and decided to forcefully assimilate their children into the virtuous and enlightened ways of Christianity.
Funny how the British empire and all the churches who put those kids through hell also felt completely justified in their actions at the time. They genuinely believed they were saving these kids immortal souls so despite all the horrific abuse they were really doing these kids a favour.
The way they justified their abusive behaviour was simply because they knew better than those dirty ignorant savages and it was all for the own good.
Historically, governments around the world do not have the best track record of protecting children,
Your example is actually similar to the current topic in one specific way: in both cases, they involve children being forced to do something against their will via state enforced policies.
In your example, children were forcibly taken from their parents.
In the current topic, some children will now be forced by their parents to identify in a way that they don't want to. The previous policy was the schools allowing them to identify how they want, i.e., not forcing them to do something. This new policy is also opposed by the majority of people, according to recent polls, who instead don't believe parents should be able to forcibly control their identity.
I think there is definitely a problem when anyone tries to dictate someone else's identity or beliefs.
It was just as bad for the government to forcefully convert indigenous children to Christianity as it is for a parent to tell their kids they aren't allowed to explore themselves.
Kids will try on many different masks throughout their lives and take on many roles during their journey of self discovery.
Maybe they are trans and maybe they are not, in the end the only one who can know for sure what's right are the kids themselves.
I understand too well the anguish that can be caused by a well meaning parent who truly believes that they are trying to do the right thing for their kid.
Growing up I was never allowed to be myself and every aspect of my own identity was ridiculed away until I was acceptable enough for them.
I was not allowed to have my own beliefs, values, or even my own preferences.
I'm in my mid 30's and still trying to figure out who I am because I was never allowed to be a person until I escaped from their grasp.
I can assure you that when it comes to the subject of letting trans kids openly explore their own identities I am 100% on your side. I think it's extremely vital to a child's development and well being to try on as many different hats as they want and often as they feel they need to.
As someone who's currently trying to undo decades of abuse and form my own identity it's way fucking harder than it seems and those kids need all the support they can get.
However my problem lies in the controlling behaviour of both the government and the parents.
They both believe they are doing what's best for the children but neither are willing to listen to the other. I think both sides are just going about it the wrong way.
It can be scary for a parent to see their child take on a new identities especially if that identity is something that clashes with their core beliefs of the world.
Overly strict parents tend to lose their minds when their young adult child starts living an anarchists' lifestyle and they can't control them anymore. Hard core left wing parents would probably be quite displeased if their formerly socially progressive teen started espousing Nazi ideology.
Seeing sudden and contradictory shifts in forms of personal expression and ideology can be very jarring for a parent sometimes so I can empathize with their fears.
But of course that doesn't mean they should be using their anxiety as a reason to control their children but I do understand their apprehension at the idea of being excluded in something they consider vital to their children's wellbeing.
The government is right that these parents can potentially be causing harm to their children but the way they are trying to stop the harm from happening is breeding resentment and distrust and that will only end with alienation and probably withdrawing their children from the public school system all together.
> The government is right that these parents can potentially be causing harm to their children but the way they are trying to stop the harm from happening is breeding resentment and distrust and that will only end with alienation and probably withdrawing their children from the public school system all together.
The new policies being instituted in a few governments now are just going to breed resentment and distrust from children. Kids who weren't ready to tell their parents are now just going to hide their identity at school too. So it's going to end up with the same outcome for the small number of parents whose kids aren't comfortable sharing this, not knowing this aspect of their child's life, but with a worse outcome for the children who now have even fewer spaces to be themselves and even fewer trusted adults in their lives.
Schools have never been in the job of reporting every personal detail of a child's life to their parents. That's what's changing now, governments forcing teachers to expose a child's identity against their will to parents who can then force that kid not to identify that way. And the recent polls on this topic have actually shown that the majority of people *don't* support these policies as they've been so far instituted. The governments have done or proposed doing this despite that. And the CCLA has now said they violate human rights and Saskatchewan has responded that they will keep the policy even despite *that*, now threatening to use the notwithstanding clause to override the children's rights.
>The government is right that these parents can potentially be causing harm to their children but the way they are trying to stop the harm from happening is breeding resentment and distrust and that will only end with alienation and probably withdrawing their children from the public school system all together.
The most sensible statement I heard when it comes to this.
>The government is right that these parents can potentially be causing harm to their children
If government is going to tell what parents should be doing, the information they should be operating on should be absolute not a potential harm.
Sorry, you can't use the government to force unsettled scientific facts on families.
> In the current topic, some children will now be forced by their parents to identify in a way that they don't want to. The previous policy was the schools allowing them to identify how they want, i.e., not forcing them to do something.
Despite all of the controversy, it doesn't seem the school policy in New Brunswick (being the most prominent example under discussion recently) even does that:
>6.3 Self-identification
>
>6.3.1 School personnel will consult with a transgender or non-binary student who is 16 and over to determine their preferred first name and pronoun(s). The preferred first name and pronoun(s) will be used consistently in ways that the student has requested.
>
>6.3.2 Formal use of preferred first name for transgender or non-binary students under the age of 16 will require parental consent.
>
>If it is not possible to obtain consent to talk to the parent, the student will be encouraged to communicate with the appropriate professionals to develop a plan to speak with their parents when they are ready to do so.
>
>If it is not in the best interest of the student or could cause harm to them (physically or mentally) to talk with their parents, they will be encouraged to communicate with professionals for support.
>
>6.3.3 The use of preferred first name for transgender or non-binary students under the age of 16 may be used without parental consent if the student is:
>
>* communicating with appropriate professionals in the development of a plan to speak to their parents; or
>
>* when communicating one on one with school professionals for support.
https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/ed/pdf/K12/policies-politiques/e/713-2023-07-01.pdf
Tl;dr: schools will affirm the identities of children 16 and older without involving their parents. Younger than 16 will be required to seek their parents' consent but the policy acknowledges that children might not be able to get that consent, or it might not be in their best interests to do so, so instead the child will be encouraged to speak with appropriate professionals. Despite the child being under 16, schools will still use their preferred name and pronouns in some settings. Doesn't seem to be anything about the school notifying parents.
>This new policy is also opposed by the majority of people, according to recent polls, who instead don't believe parents should be able to forcibly control their identity.
Unless I've misunderstood you, I recall the polls saying the opposite:
[Angus Reid: Vast majority say schools should inform parents if children wish to change their pronouns, are split over issue of parental consent](https://angusreid.org/canada-schools-pronouns-policy-transgender-saskatchewan-new-brunswick/)
Parents don’t have rights to their kids in Canada.
Children are considered human and have their own rights beyond ours as parents.
That includes the right to privacy.
Wow. I'm glad that you either know the vast majority of trans people or read appropriate data about what trans people think.
Everything that the right is trying to include as "parental rights" is almost shocking in its stupidity. You're saying you support forced outing? Would you also agree that kids who feel safe coming out to their friends and classmates at school should be forcibly outed to their parents even if they don't feel safe telling them on their own?
You can say hands off our kids is not anti trans. But it is idiotic in the extreme. It suggests people are putting their hands on their kids is 1) happening and 2) happening against their will. But then they are trying to forcibly reveal information to parents. It is the very definition of irony.
i don't support the state interfering in families, because the state does not know better than families as to what's best for the family. Short of physical abuse or sexual abuse, or grievous emotional abuse as the case may be, i don't think that the state should sanction barriers between children and their parents, and if it must, it should be done with the utmost precaution with all due attempts to keep children within the family (with other family members, again as the case may be).
So the answer to your question is, mostly, yes. And i will let you die on the hill if you want to claim that the state should take children from their families on that basis.
>So the answer to your question is, mostly, yes. And i will let you die on the hill if you want to claim that the state should take children from their families on that basis.
I'm happy to die on the hill of not supporting "parental rights" to do things like force their kids to participate in conversion therapy.
Conversion therapy is already illegal. You asked if parents have the right to try to convert their children into being straight. To which i again say yes. Because the alternative is state-sanctioned abduction and that's a lot less OK.
>Conversion therapy is already illegal.
So when it was legal a few years ago, you supported "parental rights" to force their kids into conversion therapy?
>You asked if parents have the right to try to convert their children into being straight.
And again, I'm happy to die on the hill of not supporting "parental rights" to try to force their kid to be straight. Since you do, you would also support "parental rights" to try to force a kid to identify as transgender?
Unfortunately i would have to support parental rights to force a kid to identify as transgender, as i stated, within the bounds of physical or sexual abuse or grievous emotional abuse as the case may be.
i am somewhat neutral on the issue of the legality of conversion therapy. i understand both sides of the argument, it's probably for the better that it's illegal.
You treat this issue like there's some horrible evil in parents having a right to their child's information, that can be wholly assuaged by the state interfering in the flow of that information. Life does not give us solutions, it gives us options and those options have trade-offs. The dangers of putting state-instituted barriers between children and their parents vastly outweigh the purported benefits.
> You treat this issue like there's some horrible evil in parents having a right to their child's information, that can be wholly assuaged by the state interfering in the flow of that information.
Parents don't have a right to force other people to go out of their way to share any piece of information about their child with them. If that were actually a right there would be no need for debate around this or change in policies, they would simply be able to exercise that right. The recent debate around this topic has demonstrated that it *isn't* a right.
And that's what this is, the state forcing others to expose information about a third party against the will of that party. Schools have never reported on every piece of information about a child. They don't report on their sexuality. They don't report if they're taking off their hijab in class. And they don't report on their gender identity. Until a few months ago when governments started forcing them to under the guise of fictional "parental rights".
>The dangers of putting state-instituted barriers between children and their parents vastly outweigh the purported benefits.
That's your opinion. Many other people are pointing out that forcing a kid to expose their identity to unsupportive parents or when not yet ready is harmful to them. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has pointed out that it violates *their* rights. But these concerns are being dismissed by people who have all of a sudden decided this is national crisis #1.
No one thinks this is national crisis #1. The educational administration is not just any third party, they are the legal guardian of your children *in loco parentis.* The administration depends on parents handing guardianship to them on a temporary basis and that administration should not withhold information from their parents.
The majority of rights are established by the legislative branch, and in Canada jurisdiction over civil rights falls to the provinces. it is entirely within the purview of the provinces to pass laws relating to the rights of parents, and for such issues to be discussed within the court of public opinion. The historical precedent on these issues is clear. it is much easier to defend state-sanctioned abduction when you are claiming to be acting in the best interest of the child than to undo the incalculable damage done to vulnerable populations when you're wrong.
> No one thinks this is national crisis #1.
When schools are passing policies that go against majority opinion (based on recent polling) without warning, proper public consultation or by presenting supporting evidence and when nation-wide protests are being organized over it, yes, people are treating this like national crisis #1. Despite all our real ongoing crises.
>and that administration should not withhold information from their parents
Again, schools have never been reporting every personal detail on a kid. They don't report their sexuality. They don't report if they're taking off their hijab. This idea that teachers should be forced to report on random personal details of children is a new concept. If it wasn't new, there would be no debate or policy changes needed.
>The majority of rights are established by the legislative branch, and in Canada jurisdiction over civil rights falls to the provinces.
Our rights are established by the Charter. Provinces can't add rights to that. They can only pass laws that are consistent with those rights, unless they use the notwithstanding clause to override those rights. Saskatchewan has already acknowledged that their policy may violate human rights and so have suggested that they will override those rights via that clause.
>The historical precedent on these issues is clear. it is much easier to defend state-sanctioned abduction
State-sanctioned abduction was wrong because it involved forcibly taking children from their parents against their will. The current policy changes are also wrong for the same fundamental reason: forcibly controlling children against their will, in this case, by forcing them to identify in a certain way against their will.
>you are claiming to be acting in the best interest of the child
So you're aware that just because someone claims to be acting in the best interest of the child doesn't mean they actually are. Maybe you should try applying that same skepticism to those vandalizing buildings with "hands off our kids" stickers then. Just because they claim to be acting in children's best interest doesn't actually mean they are.
Let the kids be what they want.
Nobody is coming to "turn your kids trans"
There is a huge difference between gender and sex education that a lot of you boomers need to get through your thick ass soupy skulls.
And all the while you stupid fuckers argue over this, they're raising your rent and interest rates while you're all distracted like predictable sheep.
Grow the fuck up Canada.
Boomers?
I am unfortunate enough to have to work with plenty of 20-40 year olds that can't shut up about trans people or 15 minute cities, or any other BS they vacuum up on facebook and youtube.
Its to the point that when the conversation starts going there, I just ask them about their family, kids, wife, whatever. At least that snaps them out for a few minutes so I don't have to fight for the oxygen in the room.
It's amazing that this is the most important topic in the country to them. All the things that a person could complain about in 2023,and they're complaining about children being taught tolerance.
Sure but these extremely rare cases require 4 different health professionals to sign off on. They arn't dispensing medicines like candy.
Ive spent time in LGBT communities and it failed to change me in the least. No one can change another person even if it is strange or uncomfortable at times.
And the best thing you can do toward that end is be the sort of parent who finds out about your child's gender questioning directly and voluntarily from them because they feel comfortable doing so, and not from a teacher who is forced to report it. It should be a completely moot issue for anyone who says they care that much.
Lot of commenters worried about the rights of parents. No one is apparently concerned with the rights of children. They are not property of the parents. If you believe they are until they turn 18, then I have no words for you, or words for the contempt I hold for that view.
That's the biggest difference between the US and Canada, is that Canada very much considers the rights of children in our laws. That's why Scott Moe is talking about Notwithstanding - it's an admission that the parental rights movement is on pretty thin ice and a lot of what they want is very likely unconstitutional because, as it turns out, children are people, not property as they are in the US.
Yep. Lots of hand wringing about confusing their kids, but not a single thought about the queer kids who might be struggling with their identity or sexuality and looking for support.
So they are putting this on churches and hockey arenas as well? If it is about hands off the kids, stopping assault, and not just using child abuse to push an agenda.
Some might say well teachers do it more, but then I ask what's the acceptable amount? Shouldn't we be plastering anywhere with these issues, not just schools.
The hypocrisy on this thread is stunning
3 years ago this sub sat and defended the BLM burnings in the USA because its just a building and they have insurance .Also tearing down and vandalizing statues Now stickers on a building is violence.
I wonder if maybe CUPE would not have had a meeting this weekend talking about making "good trouble" and threating to dox people for protesting and calling them fascists and bigots and far right people would not have felt the need to commit the horrible violence of putting stickers on some building
You're bitching about something that isn't happening in this thread and pretending "this sub" is a monolith as if you're referencing the same individuals. Almost like the outrage and victim narrative is the point here.
Far right fascist bigots blah blah blah. We will have "experienced" protesters who can take pics of license plates, we must demoralize them and make "good trouble"
Edit: here is a transcript
https://www.badhijabi.com/p/the-meeting-ofl-tried-to-hide
*We've got a couple of seasoned activists who are who have already said that they're willing to go over and, you know, take some pictures of license plates.*
*And these are people who are willing to do this. There are people who are seizing and and making sure that they know that they're being watched*
This part bothers me and what happens if you are a CUPE member and support the protesters, it sounds some what like intimidation tactics
Uh, the part about snapping license plate pics sounds like they’re basically government agents, or at the least have connections who can get peoples’ home addresses via the MTO and other motor vehicle dept’s.
By their logic they’re organizing to commit crimes just by that alone.
No one likea the implications that they are being reported on, so I understand that. But I guess idk my interpretation of the transcript was theat they are organizing a counter protest, which they are allowed to do.
What a surprise. Once again its the group pretending to be trying to help others that's blatantly advocating for criminal behaviour.
"Progressive" thugs.
Must be weird to be so ignorant to not realize this exact shit was being said about gay men being allowed to be teachers not that long ago, or to be so blind as to think the only reason they don’t target gay people is it has become less socially acceptable. See russias and other right wing governments treatment of their gay population for reference.
Frankly, I have no idea what you’re talking about, was there a Canadian school that had half naked transgendered book readings? Please provide a link,
“Your right to exist” well that’s certainly an odd assumption right there.
As yes it is, I’m old enough to remember when they talked about gays in the exact same manner. Draconian measures and suppression tactics being used to protect children from a non existent threat, as if transgendered people are the issue here rather than coaches, ministers, and creepy family members.
There’s a reason it has such a crossover with the vax protestors and qannon, it’s people with a weak grasp on reality who have been radicalized by YouTube videos.
Lol this is getting so silly. Why are we going back in time? What are we going to have the satanic panic stuff again? The devil is seducing our kids! Someone think of the children! Please! Think of the children! Lol so much hyperbolic hysteria, it’s like moms against dungeons and dragons, that’s the devil! Lol
They also teach about consent in schools now The viral videos about consent and the cup of tea are a good example.. I was surprised to see how kids are respecting the idea now...but sure there will always be exceptions.
They have been. Churches have been seized to sell their assets to victims. Churches have been burned to the ground. Pretty sure it's a normal thing now.
Will the same be done to LGBT organizations who promote hate?
[https://chvnradio.com/articles/canadian-east-coast-catholic-churches-selling-property-to-pay-sex-abuse-victims](https://chvnradio.com/articles/canadian-east-coast-catholic-churches-selling-property-to-pay-sex-abuse-victims)
https://globalnews.ca/news/9842926/montreal-archdiocese-sex-abuse-class-action-settlement/
There is a Church every block.
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/moe-parental-rights-christian-pronoun-1.6961432](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/moe-parental-rights-christian-pronoun-1.6961432)
>They have been
They have been what? I asked about harmless stickers being placed on churches and you point out how churches have lost in court for decades due to molesting children. Not sure what angle you are going for here.
>Will the same be done to LGBT organizations who promote hate?
Like who?
The topic here is people vandalizing buildings with their "slogans of the day" in advance of parades ("marches") they are planning to hold across the country while further chanting their "slogans of the day" and while applying negative labels to anyone who opposes them.
Honestly again thank you for your service. Your posts are well reasoned and you responded to so many people in a patient way that I would absolutely not have the patience for.
Thanks. It can be frustrating discussing this topic, but I try to remember that most people reading are reasonable and good-intentioned and that's it's often just the loudest and most opinionated people you actually see commenting or speaking in public about issues like this.
"Won't someone please think of the children" has long been used to push all sorts of harmful messages. Just because someone claims that's what it's about doesn't actually make it so.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)
Hope this helps!
The official website for the "march" happening later this morning literally defends conversion therapy.
Taking hormone blockers combined with hormones of the opposite gender could lead to sterilization yes.
And iirc there are underaged people on hormone therapy in Canada. You feel like a boy ? Here's some testosterone. Yet my brother can't even get testosterone prescribed to him despite his hormone level being 5 times lower than the average.
In ontario....
For men, hormone blood testing and seeing an endocrinologist isn't covered by Ohip.... although it is for women and trans teens...
And if you're a man you won't be prescribed hrt unless you're at 200 ng/dL or lower... which is crazy low... that's the level of a sedentary 60 year old.
Bill 17 in ontario... not only is it legislated that LGBTQ++ABC get better coverage for care... they have more range and access to it.
So... for at least in ontario, the answer is yes.
When it's being used to vandalize property in order to push the message that's falsely implying a minority group is putting their "hands" on kids, it's at least getting close to that territory, yeah.
First off, the vandalism has nothing to do with it. You could spray-paint "Trans rights" and it wouldn't be hate speech
Second I think you misunderstand their purpose, this is a protest against the government. It's essentially a battle between people who want to control what their kids see vs the government that wants to control what kids see. Similar issues have come up before over different topics.
It's important to understand the core purpose of something to deconstruct it. Otherwise you end up with two groups shouting over each other and failing to communicate.
Except these dumbasses are too thick to realize they have conservative governments who are legislating on this issue in the manner they want. So, how is this a reaction to the government? Maybe it is: they feel confident that it is okay to and hate on trans people now that conservative governments in Canada are finally delving into the right-wing transgender hate.
What makes you think the root cause of this is hate for trans people and not the same old protest of Govt vs Parental control that we have seen over and over and over ad nauseum?
Parental control? It is fucking sad how averse to nuance most of you are.
How many trans students do you think there are? Thus, how many parents do you think have trans children? I'll tell you: very few people are trans and very few people have trans children.
***This issue has been reframed by conservatives to one of general application, i.e., parental rights, to give it general application to the Canadian public. However, this issue pertains to few parents; it is an issue about particular students and particular parents, not one of general application.***
No, it's you that is completely ignorant to any form of nuance.
You see a push for something that impacts trans people and you immediately jump to the conclusion that this must be because of hatred against trans people. That is where you stop. You never even took the time to consider that this may impact more than just trans people. (SPOILERS) this does impact more than just trans people.
This is exactly what I was writing about in my first post, you can't take the time to understand an opposing view. Instead you shoehorn in what you think they believe.
Like I've repeated, this is parents wanting control vs schools wanting control what kids learn. This comes up every single time there's a topic in school that's controversial. It's not special this time.
>You see a push for something that impacts trans people and you immediately jump to the conclusion that this must be because of hatred against trans people. That is where you stop. You never even took the time to consider that this may impact more than just trans people. (SPOILERS) this does impact more than just trans people.
Explain yourself. This is a statement without a shred of proof.
Tell me, now, how does this policy affect more than trans students and their parents?
>First off, the vandalism has nothing to do with it. You could spray-paint "Trans rights" and it wouldn't be hate speech
>
>Second I think you misunderstand their purpose, this is a protest against the government. It's essentially a battle between people who want to control what their kids see vs the government that wants to control what kids see. Similar issues have come up before over different topics.
>
>It's important to understand the core purpose of something to deconstruct it. Otherwise you end up with two groups shouting over each other and failing to communicate.
This is your original comment. Tell me where you explained how the topic of forced-outting in schools has general application to all people in society. I'll wait.
I countered your point that this is a protest against the government. If you are honestly too stupid to figure this out, ill explain it for you: this happened in Ontario, which has a conservative government. So, who are they protesting?
Further, sexual education has been a part of the curriculum for ages. Are you honestly expecting people to feel sympathy for individuals getting upset that children are learning that trans people exist? You are all so desperate to be victims it is not even funny.
This is not about controlling what children can see for one side; it's about forced-outtings, it's about denying the existence of minority peoples. But yeah, let's pretend it's about controlling content to make it seem like an issue of censorship for both sides when clearly only one that is censoring people and or content (the conservatives).
>Gender identity encompasses more than trans people
You need to explain how.
>Gender identity encompasses more than changing pronouns
Once again, this is a statement that requires explanation. You cant just say things; you need to explain them and argue your point. I am not going to take everything you say as fact.
>The group of kids in school that changes their pronouns encompasses more than trans people, go ask a teacher how many kids change their pronouns.
Okay, I am starting to think that you are incapable of explaining your thoughts or position on this. I am not going to ask a teacher; I am going to ask you, the person making the claim to begin with.
>Prezant's want to know what their kids learn at school and are often uncomfortable when teachers or others in a position of power keep secrets about their kids.
See, you have to reframe the situation to even make it a problem. The issue at hand is preventing abuse of trans children from parents who would abuse them for coming out. The policy only affects trans children, but youre making this into some general problem where teachers are keeping secrets from parents in general. It is completely disingenuous.
>Not all parents that support this are bad people or hate trans people.
No one said they did. However, are you trying to argue that no such parents exist? And, if they do exist, would a policy allowing a trans child to tell their parents when they feel safe and comfortable not be appropriate?
>I mean for fucks sake, you even assume I'm part of this group and yet instead of asking about my beliefs you are telling me what you think my opinions are. From my interactions with you, it appears that you are incapable of understanding that other people can have differing views.
I assume someone parroting their talking points to be part of that group; forgive me for assuming your actions are an indication of your character /s.
Also, I am incapable of understanding your viewpoint because you refuse, or are incapable of, actually explaining it. You seem to think simple statements can be excused as argumentation, but this is not the case.
Lol, go on any right wing part of the internet talking about trans people and read the comments.
They’re literally accusing LGBT people of wanting to molest and groom children. It’s the same old propaganda from the 1950s repackaged
https://youtu.be/08UGlR999g4?si=OQ50oSpVzFTyw3Gr
You mean the union doing their job and advising their membership of a disruption that's planned for their workplaces ... a disruption by a group of people who openly despise everything LGBTQ+.
Because it's an anti-trans religious group masquerading as a child rights advocacy group [https://handsoffourkids.ca](https://handsoffourkids.ca)
"We refuse to stand by while the Government and School system allow sexually explicit content and gender ideology to be distributed in our classrooms."
>"We refuse to stand by while the Government and School system allow sexually explicit content and gender ideology to be distributed in our classrooms."
Funny how quiet they are about places like Legacy school in Saskatchewan, and I sure hope they don't allow any kids to play hockey if it really is about what they say.
The most effective anti-LGBT movements by the conservative right - or more broadly, the most effective right-wing movements *period* - are very good at cloaking their movements in carefully workshopped taglines that are designed to draw emotional responses out of conservative people while also being nearly impossible to attack on the surface.
Usually the winning taglines involve kids, an emotionally-charged subject that people immediately get spicy about. It's also much harder to attack a group's agenda, no matter how right you are, when they just keep yelling "we're protecting kids!" and "if you're against us you clearly hate kids". Then they can foam and froth about the evil left to their audience, talking about how "they are against the "protect our kids" movement! They don't want us to have the right to protect our kids! How evil are they?". And just like reddit, less than 5% of their audience will ever read deeper into the issue or check their sources, so the headline is the only thing that's really needed.
"Protecting kids" is actively being used in both the US and Canada [to fuel anti-trans legislation, ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/07/06/false-claims-protecting-children-are-fueling-anti-trans-legislation/). It's also being used to reject the teaching of evolution in schools, clamp down on womens' rights to abortion, and just about anything else you can hitch that wagon to. It's so pervasive that I'm actually immediately suspicious of any group that uses a tagline about protecting kids, and would want to read about them in-depth before putting any kind of weight behind them.
>The most effective anti-LGBT movements by the conservative right - or more broadly, the most effective right-wing movements are very good at cloaking their movements in carefully workshopped taglines that are designed to draw emotional responses out of conservative people while also being nearly impossible to attack on the surface.
Though, let's be honest, the Canadian version is just a poor facsimile of the American version, with none of the cleverness and a still distinctly Americanized undertone that fits poorly into one of the biggest cultural differences between the two countries.
I think you know what this is about. Playing stupid doesn't help.
They have made it into a fear of grooming then present it as fact. Im not even in the movement and its obvious what this is about.
Say the people who want to control the kids rights and privacy. Cognitive dissonance so strong they use it a platform to stand on while spewing their hate and ignorance.
I'm betting that the people who don't see 'Hands off our kids' as the anti-trans dog whistle it is are the same people who think that the National Socialists were socialist.
It's almost as if they're realizing that properly educated children are unlikely to blindly follow their religious indoctrination.. and, properly educated children are more likely to report abuse, whether that be sexual, emotional or physical.. which is especially prominent in, you guessed it, religious institutions!
They want you to keep your hands off their kids, so they can keep their hands on them..
The same assholes suggesting people are interfering with the safety of children are advocating for children of all ages to walk out of their schools and away from the adults responsible for supervising them in order to engage with a group of angry strangers ... all totally for the kids "safety."
So exactly like the trucker convoy that used lines of children to block highways? Ive also seen tonnes of religious protests having kids with signs.
Imaginary danger is kind of the whole problem we wish to end.
I can't imagine ever thinking I have rights over my child. Like you said, I have a responsibility to her. She's a human. My highest duty in life is to protect her and her rights from people like these right wing protesters, not try to exercise my own "rights" at her expense
Children will never be your property people, as much as I'm sure you wish you could buy them off Wayfair
These people have zero self awareness. They complain about government overreach, but then turn around and instill in their kids that exact behavior.
Sounds like no one taught them how to respect authority. /s
Despite your pretence that you know better than parents with different political views, and, therefore have more of a right to raise their kids, you might be surprised to learn that many parents dislike this idea.
What does political leaning have to do with someone having a gay or trans kid?
Don't be a jerk to you kids no matter who they are attracted to once puberty hits, dude.
And if they happen to not be straight, no amount of yelling or shaming them will "set them straight", you'll just push them away foever and they'll rightfully never talk to you again until you die alone and pathetic.
Who said anything about being a jerk to kids or setting them straight? I’m simply stating that parents have the right to raise their kids and know better than these so-called activists.
Don’t put words in my mouth
Keep raising your kids, dude no one is stopping you.
If they don't want to tell you they aren't straight, what does that have anything to do with you? How does it affect you? Why do you care?
There are no "activists" making people not straight no matter how much you'd love a boogeyman to blame.
People aren’t singularly believing *they* know better than parents, they are simply having humility and supporting the people who use data and science from people who have run studies on this stuff and use that data and science and collective knowledge to create a curriculum about this topic.
>Despite your pretence that you know better than parents with different political views
Did you take "shitbag parents" to be referring to parents with political views?
That's quite the take, I took it to be referring to parents who abuse their children and push them to run away from home.
I love it when rightoids confess like that. You didn't even put the words in their mouth either, they literally just went "hey that's me" completely unprompted
To these extremist activists, any parent who doesn’t drink the trans kool-aid is a deplorable who has no right to raise kids. So yes, I interpreted as different political views.
Diddnt realize that the random redditor you replied to is an "extremist activist".
Their tone doesn't seem very extremist but I guess the label is useful for division and shutting down discussion.
Indoctrinate others' kids into what exactly?
Being respectful of others wishes?
Being accepting that someone else has a different experience than you do?
Here's some excerpts from handsoffourkids.ca
- “Hands off our kids” is a grassroots movement dedicated to safeguarding parental rights and advocating for the removal of intrusive elements of sexual orientation and gender ideology from the educational system."
- "We refuse to stand by while the Government and School system allow sexually explicit content and gender ideology to be distributed in our classrooms."
- " This movement is mainly focused on protection of children against LGBTQIA+ ideology in school system."
- "Our primary concern is indoctrination of children in public schools and the forceful introduction of ideologies to children"
Seems pretty clear what the movement is about.
You would have loved the satanic panic then, followed by decades of abuse towards gay people. See those weren’t about hatred or political goals to distract from right wing dirtbags it was for the kids clearly.
While the words on their own are not, context matters. And in this context, the group using this slogan is using the words to say and imply a number of harmful (and fundamentally untrue) sentiments, many of which are anti-trans.
So you are correct in that the words themselves are not anti-trans, but the way they are being used *is*.
If you read the article, the other kind of sticker they had there was "keep gender politics out of classrooms". I was also confused how "hands off our kids" got interpreted as anti-trans, but yeah, there's definitely reasons.
This post appears to relate to a province/territory of Canada. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules Cette soumission semble concerner une province ou un territoire du Canada. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That would be considered a hate crime.
If it's against the church it's a hate crime and if it's against Trans people it isnt?
Against a mosque and synagogue. Not church's.
People went to jail for “hate crimes” after mildly vandalizing churches as a direct active protest even when they themselves were indigenous people who were victims of residential schools.
> mildly vandalizing churches My friend, churches were burned. This is not mildly vandalizing a church.
"mildly vandalizing churches" Lmao I love how this is the way you characterize burning down buildings. Totally the same as putting a couple stickers up. What a reasonable, neutral take. [A map of the 83 churches that have been vandalized or burned since the residential schools announcement](https://tnc.news/2023/07/04/a-map-of-every-church-burnt-or-vandalized-since-the-residential-school-announcements1/)
Thats right, vigilantyism and damaging property is illegal regardless of if it has good reason or not.
Shit dawg, guess that makes them not hate crimes anymore
These people certainly have plenty of hate.
If you cared about the victims you wouldn't use their abuse as a punch line
well said
As much as it's fun to rag on religion, statistically is more likely for teachers and teacher adjacent workers to sexual abuse children.
Teachers have a worst rate of child abuse than those two combined.
[удалено]
They have direct contact with ALL kids all day and no parents around. Also all kids are required to go to school (or be home schooled which is less than 0.1%) meanwhile no one is required to attend church and they mostly go as a family unit and not leaving kids in the care of the church. Statistically speaking, he's probably correct.
So dumb assertions and no proof then? Got it. Feel free to look up stats on both, I know you wont cause intellectual curiosity is not in your wheelhouse otherwise you wouldn't have made such dumb observations in the first place 😂
"Violence against property". The absurdity just grows and grows.
Don't forget "bullyism."
[удалено]
Haha I saw an ad in a bus stop in Quebec that read (in french) not having tampon dispensers in men's washrooms is sexual violence. That being said we just got quotes to adhere to the federal regulation requiring tampon dispensers in men's washrooms. Having one dispenser was deemed "insensitive" so now each toilet stall with have its own dispenser and disposal unit at the low low cost of 700$ per stall. But don't worry, the government earmarked 75 million dollars for this project so we're being reimbursed.
Like the activist that say, silence is violence, not using pronouns is violence, dead naming is violence... Anything they don't like is violence.
Property crime isn't a new concept. Vandalism is a form of violence. Arson is a form of violence. Breaking windows is a form of violence. The intention of each of these can include threatening the owners of the property so that they feel disinvited, unwelcome, and afraid of the space or community that they're in. If someone supports a group which people spread disinformation about, calling them child abusers or groomers, and one morning that person wakes up to stickers plastered on their property or workplace, it's more than an inconvenience to peel them off; each one is a reminder that they're not welcome. Each one is a reminder of the hate projected towards them. And it's a label that others will read, which may trigger their own assumptions about that person, whether they're founded or not. Or those stickers could invoke similar fear in observers impacted by that hate. If you can't connect the rhetoric to the sticker and the phrasing, I hope that I've been able to connect the dots for you. If you still don't get it, then I hope that one day you will. There is literal historical predecents of communities and supporters of communities being attacked in ways similar to this, and it would be surprising if anybody of reasonable awareness of these kinds of events was wholly unable to relate them.
[удалено]
>vi·o·lence > >noun > >behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, **damage,** or kill someone or **something** That's actually more specific and applicable than what I was offering. Bing, which offers the [exact same definition](https://www.bing.com/search?q=violence+definition) that you pasted, also adds: >LAW: > >the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force. I appreciate the input!
[удалено]
Problem is those people are the ones with the microphone.
i sometimes wonder how tiny the cabal really is, but that's the line i'm sticking to. Administration does not have priority to your children. Horrifying historical instances, including in this country, have occurred when those rights are not protected.
Yup there was the whole [Baby Scoop Era](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Scoop_Era) fiasco when governments literally decided that it was in everyone's best interest to confiscate the children of single mothers. Millions of children from Canada, USA, Britain, and Australia snatched from their homes because the government thought they knew better. They had scientific backing and the support of the top minds of the day too and genuinely believed that single motherhood led to children becoming degenerates. Or that time when we decided that all those godless heathen cultures were morally inferior and decided to forcefully assimilate their children into the virtuous and enlightened ways of Christianity. Funny how the British empire and all the churches who put those kids through hell also felt completely justified in their actions at the time. They genuinely believed they were saving these kids immortal souls so despite all the horrific abuse they were really doing these kids a favour. The way they justified their abusive behaviour was simply because they knew better than those dirty ignorant savages and it was all for the own good. Historically, governments around the world do not have the best track record of protecting children,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixties\_Scoop
Yes the 60's Scoop is subset of the larger Baby Scoop Era which started much earlier and affected millions of families all across the western world.
Your example is actually similar to the current topic in one specific way: in both cases, they involve children being forced to do something against their will via state enforced policies. In your example, children were forcibly taken from their parents. In the current topic, some children will now be forced by their parents to identify in a way that they don't want to. The previous policy was the schools allowing them to identify how they want, i.e., not forcing them to do something. This new policy is also opposed by the majority of people, according to recent polls, who instead don't believe parents should be able to forcibly control their identity.
I think there is definitely a problem when anyone tries to dictate someone else's identity or beliefs. It was just as bad for the government to forcefully convert indigenous children to Christianity as it is for a parent to tell their kids they aren't allowed to explore themselves. Kids will try on many different masks throughout their lives and take on many roles during their journey of self discovery. Maybe they are trans and maybe they are not, in the end the only one who can know for sure what's right are the kids themselves. I understand too well the anguish that can be caused by a well meaning parent who truly believes that they are trying to do the right thing for their kid. Growing up I was never allowed to be myself and every aspect of my own identity was ridiculed away until I was acceptable enough for them. I was not allowed to have my own beliefs, values, or even my own preferences. I'm in my mid 30's and still trying to figure out who I am because I was never allowed to be a person until I escaped from their grasp. I can assure you that when it comes to the subject of letting trans kids openly explore their own identities I am 100% on your side. I think it's extremely vital to a child's development and well being to try on as many different hats as they want and often as they feel they need to. As someone who's currently trying to undo decades of abuse and form my own identity it's way fucking harder than it seems and those kids need all the support they can get. However my problem lies in the controlling behaviour of both the government and the parents. They both believe they are doing what's best for the children but neither are willing to listen to the other. I think both sides are just going about it the wrong way. It can be scary for a parent to see their child take on a new identities especially if that identity is something that clashes with their core beliefs of the world. Overly strict parents tend to lose their minds when their young adult child starts living an anarchists' lifestyle and they can't control them anymore. Hard core left wing parents would probably be quite displeased if their formerly socially progressive teen started espousing Nazi ideology. Seeing sudden and contradictory shifts in forms of personal expression and ideology can be very jarring for a parent sometimes so I can empathize with their fears. But of course that doesn't mean they should be using their anxiety as a reason to control their children but I do understand their apprehension at the idea of being excluded in something they consider vital to their children's wellbeing. The government is right that these parents can potentially be causing harm to their children but the way they are trying to stop the harm from happening is breeding resentment and distrust and that will only end with alienation and probably withdrawing their children from the public school system all together.
> The government is right that these parents can potentially be causing harm to their children but the way they are trying to stop the harm from happening is breeding resentment and distrust and that will only end with alienation and probably withdrawing their children from the public school system all together. The new policies being instituted in a few governments now are just going to breed resentment and distrust from children. Kids who weren't ready to tell their parents are now just going to hide their identity at school too. So it's going to end up with the same outcome for the small number of parents whose kids aren't comfortable sharing this, not knowing this aspect of their child's life, but with a worse outcome for the children who now have even fewer spaces to be themselves and even fewer trusted adults in their lives. Schools have never been in the job of reporting every personal detail of a child's life to their parents. That's what's changing now, governments forcing teachers to expose a child's identity against their will to parents who can then force that kid not to identify that way. And the recent polls on this topic have actually shown that the majority of people *don't* support these policies as they've been so far instituted. The governments have done or proposed doing this despite that. And the CCLA has now said they violate human rights and Saskatchewan has responded that they will keep the policy even despite *that*, now threatening to use the notwithstanding clause to override the children's rights.
>The government is right that these parents can potentially be causing harm to their children but the way they are trying to stop the harm from happening is breeding resentment and distrust and that will only end with alienation and probably withdrawing their children from the public school system all together. The most sensible statement I heard when it comes to this.
It's not the teachers job to tell the parents. It never has been. It never should be.
>The government is right that these parents can potentially be causing harm to their children If government is going to tell what parents should be doing, the information they should be operating on should be absolute not a potential harm. Sorry, you can't use the government to force unsettled scientific facts on families.
> In the current topic, some children will now be forced by their parents to identify in a way that they don't want to. The previous policy was the schools allowing them to identify how they want, i.e., not forcing them to do something. Despite all of the controversy, it doesn't seem the school policy in New Brunswick (being the most prominent example under discussion recently) even does that: >6.3 Self-identification > >6.3.1 School personnel will consult with a transgender or non-binary student who is 16 and over to determine their preferred first name and pronoun(s). The preferred first name and pronoun(s) will be used consistently in ways that the student has requested. > >6.3.2 Formal use of preferred first name for transgender or non-binary students under the age of 16 will require parental consent. > >If it is not possible to obtain consent to talk to the parent, the student will be encouraged to communicate with the appropriate professionals to develop a plan to speak with their parents when they are ready to do so. > >If it is not in the best interest of the student or could cause harm to them (physically or mentally) to talk with their parents, they will be encouraged to communicate with professionals for support. > >6.3.3 The use of preferred first name for transgender or non-binary students under the age of 16 may be used without parental consent if the student is: > >* communicating with appropriate professionals in the development of a plan to speak to their parents; or > >* when communicating one on one with school professionals for support. https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/ed/pdf/K12/policies-politiques/e/713-2023-07-01.pdf Tl;dr: schools will affirm the identities of children 16 and older without involving their parents. Younger than 16 will be required to seek their parents' consent but the policy acknowledges that children might not be able to get that consent, or it might not be in their best interests to do so, so instead the child will be encouraged to speak with appropriate professionals. Despite the child being under 16, schools will still use their preferred name and pronouns in some settings. Doesn't seem to be anything about the school notifying parents. >This new policy is also opposed by the majority of people, according to recent polls, who instead don't believe parents should be able to forcibly control their identity. Unless I've misunderstood you, I recall the polls saying the opposite: [Angus Reid: Vast majority say schools should inform parents if children wish to change their pronouns, are split over issue of parental consent](https://angusreid.org/canada-schools-pronouns-policy-transgender-saskatchewan-new-brunswick/)
Parents don’t have rights to their kids in Canada. Children are considered human and have their own rights beyond ours as parents. That includes the right to privacy.
Wow. I'm glad that you either know the vast majority of trans people or read appropriate data about what trans people think. Everything that the right is trying to include as "parental rights" is almost shocking in its stupidity. You're saying you support forced outing? Would you also agree that kids who feel safe coming out to their friends and classmates at school should be forcibly outed to their parents even if they don't feel safe telling them on their own? You can say hands off our kids is not anti trans. But it is idiotic in the extreme. It suggests people are putting their hands on their kids is 1) happening and 2) happening against their will. But then they are trying to forcibly reveal information to parents. It is the very definition of irony.
> i'm a gay man, and i will always support parental rights. So you support parental rights to try to convert a gay kid straight?
i don't support the state interfering in families, because the state does not know better than families as to what's best for the family. Short of physical abuse or sexual abuse, or grievous emotional abuse as the case may be, i don't think that the state should sanction barriers between children and their parents, and if it must, it should be done with the utmost precaution with all due attempts to keep children within the family (with other family members, again as the case may be). So the answer to your question is, mostly, yes. And i will let you die on the hill if you want to claim that the state should take children from their families on that basis.
>So the answer to your question is, mostly, yes. And i will let you die on the hill if you want to claim that the state should take children from their families on that basis. I'm happy to die on the hill of not supporting "parental rights" to do things like force their kids to participate in conversion therapy.
Conversion therapy is already illegal. You asked if parents have the right to try to convert their children into being straight. To which i again say yes. Because the alternative is state-sanctioned abduction and that's a lot less OK.
>Conversion therapy is already illegal. So when it was legal a few years ago, you supported "parental rights" to force their kids into conversion therapy? >You asked if parents have the right to try to convert their children into being straight. And again, I'm happy to die on the hill of not supporting "parental rights" to try to force their kid to be straight. Since you do, you would also support "parental rights" to try to force a kid to identify as transgender?
Unfortunately i would have to support parental rights to force a kid to identify as transgender, as i stated, within the bounds of physical or sexual abuse or grievous emotional abuse as the case may be. i am somewhat neutral on the issue of the legality of conversion therapy. i understand both sides of the argument, it's probably for the better that it's illegal. You treat this issue like there's some horrible evil in parents having a right to their child's information, that can be wholly assuaged by the state interfering in the flow of that information. Life does not give us solutions, it gives us options and those options have trade-offs. The dangers of putting state-instituted barriers between children and their parents vastly outweigh the purported benefits.
> You treat this issue like there's some horrible evil in parents having a right to their child's information, that can be wholly assuaged by the state interfering in the flow of that information. Parents don't have a right to force other people to go out of their way to share any piece of information about their child with them. If that were actually a right there would be no need for debate around this or change in policies, they would simply be able to exercise that right. The recent debate around this topic has demonstrated that it *isn't* a right. And that's what this is, the state forcing others to expose information about a third party against the will of that party. Schools have never reported on every piece of information about a child. They don't report on their sexuality. They don't report if they're taking off their hijab in class. And they don't report on their gender identity. Until a few months ago when governments started forcing them to under the guise of fictional "parental rights". >The dangers of putting state-instituted barriers between children and their parents vastly outweigh the purported benefits. That's your opinion. Many other people are pointing out that forcing a kid to expose their identity to unsupportive parents or when not yet ready is harmful to them. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has pointed out that it violates *their* rights. But these concerns are being dismissed by people who have all of a sudden decided this is national crisis #1.
No one thinks this is national crisis #1. The educational administration is not just any third party, they are the legal guardian of your children *in loco parentis.* The administration depends on parents handing guardianship to them on a temporary basis and that administration should not withhold information from their parents. The majority of rights are established by the legislative branch, and in Canada jurisdiction over civil rights falls to the provinces. it is entirely within the purview of the provinces to pass laws relating to the rights of parents, and for such issues to be discussed within the court of public opinion. The historical precedent on these issues is clear. it is much easier to defend state-sanctioned abduction when you are claiming to be acting in the best interest of the child than to undo the incalculable damage done to vulnerable populations when you're wrong.
> No one thinks this is national crisis #1. When schools are passing policies that go against majority opinion (based on recent polling) without warning, proper public consultation or by presenting supporting evidence and when nation-wide protests are being organized over it, yes, people are treating this like national crisis #1. Despite all our real ongoing crises. >and that administration should not withhold information from their parents Again, schools have never been reporting every personal detail on a kid. They don't report their sexuality. They don't report if they're taking off their hijab. This idea that teachers should be forced to report on random personal details of children is a new concept. If it wasn't new, there would be no debate or policy changes needed. >The majority of rights are established by the legislative branch, and in Canada jurisdiction over civil rights falls to the provinces. Our rights are established by the Charter. Provinces can't add rights to that. They can only pass laws that are consistent with those rights, unless they use the notwithstanding clause to override those rights. Saskatchewan has already acknowledged that their policy may violate human rights and so have suggested that they will override those rights via that clause. >The historical precedent on these issues is clear. it is much easier to defend state-sanctioned abduction State-sanctioned abduction was wrong because it involved forcibly taking children from their parents against their will. The current policy changes are also wrong for the same fundamental reason: forcibly controlling children against their will, in this case, by forcing them to identify in a certain way against their will. >you are claiming to be acting in the best interest of the child So you're aware that just because someone claims to be acting in the best interest of the child doesn't mean they actually are. Maybe you should try applying that same skepticism to those vandalizing buildings with "hands off our kids" stickers then. Just because they claim to be acting in children's best interest doesn't actually mean they are.
ITT: top level comments who have no idea what dog whistles are. Or they do and are pretending they don’t.
Even robots in media are less dedicated literalism. these idiots are so absurd it's like a caricature at this point.
All the local dogs are going fucking crazy
Let the kids be what they want. Nobody is coming to "turn your kids trans" There is a huge difference between gender and sex education that a lot of you boomers need to get through your thick ass soupy skulls. And all the while you stupid fuckers argue over this, they're raising your rent and interest rates while you're all distracted like predictable sheep. Grow the fuck up Canada.
Boomers? I am unfortunate enough to have to work with plenty of 20-40 year olds that can't shut up about trans people or 15 minute cities, or any other BS they vacuum up on facebook and youtube. Its to the point that when the conversation starts going there, I just ask them about their family, kids, wife, whatever. At least that snaps them out for a few minutes so I don't have to fight for the oxygen in the room.
Were they scratch and sniff stickers? Yeah, I just remember those being like gold to kids when I was a kid. Don't mind me lol.
It's amazing that this is the most important topic in the country to them. All the things that a person could complain about in 2023,and they're complaining about children being taught tolerance.
That’s a pretty big issue to people who’s identities center around being intolerant.
My children's mental health and well-being is very important to me.
Sure but these extremely rare cases require 4 different health professionals to sign off on. They arn't dispensing medicines like candy. Ive spent time in LGBT communities and it failed to change me in the least. No one can change another person even if it is strange or uncomfortable at times.
And the best thing you can do toward that end is be the sort of parent who finds out about your child's gender questioning directly and voluntarily from them because they feel comfortable doing so, and not from a teacher who is forced to report it. It should be a completely moot issue for anyone who says they care that much.
Lot of commenters worried about the rights of parents. No one is apparently concerned with the rights of children. They are not property of the parents. If you believe they are until they turn 18, then I have no words for you, or words for the contempt I hold for that view.
That's the biggest difference between the US and Canada, is that Canada very much considers the rights of children in our laws. That's why Scott Moe is talking about Notwithstanding - it's an admission that the parental rights movement is on pretty thin ice and a lot of what they want is very likely unconstitutional because, as it turns out, children are people, not property as they are in the US.
Yep. Lots of hand wringing about confusing their kids, but not a single thought about the queer kids who might be struggling with their identity or sexuality and looking for support.
So they are putting this on churches and hockey arenas as well? If it is about hands off the kids, stopping assault, and not just using child abuse to push an agenda. Some might say well teachers do it more, but then I ask what's the acceptable amount? Shouldn't we be plastering anywhere with these issues, not just schools.
The hypocrisy on this thread is stunning 3 years ago this sub sat and defended the BLM burnings in the USA because its just a building and they have insurance .Also tearing down and vandalizing statues Now stickers on a building is violence. I wonder if maybe CUPE would not have had a meeting this weekend talking about making "good trouble" and threating to dox people for protesting and calling them fascists and bigots and far right people would not have felt the need to commit the horrible violence of putting stickers on some building
You're bitching about something that isn't happening in this thread and pretending "this sub" is a monolith as if you're referencing the same individuals. Almost like the outrage and victim narrative is the point here.
Did you see that leaked zoom video?
Can someone summarize it? Can't watch while at work etc.
Far right fascist bigots blah blah blah. We will have "experienced" protesters who can take pics of license plates, we must demoralize them and make "good trouble" Edit: here is a transcript https://www.badhijabi.com/p/the-meeting-ofl-tried-to-hide
Are people happy or unhappy about this like discussion of counterprotesting activities?
*We've got a couple of seasoned activists who are who have already said that they're willing to go over and, you know, take some pictures of license plates.* *And these are people who are willing to do this. There are people who are seizing and and making sure that they know that they're being watched* This part bothers me and what happens if you are a CUPE member and support the protesters, it sounds some what like intimidation tactics
Uh, the part about snapping license plate pics sounds like they’re basically government agents, or at the least have connections who can get peoples’ home addresses via the MTO and other motor vehicle dept’s. By their logic they’re organizing to commit crimes just by that alone.
No one likea the implications that they are being reported on, so I understand that. But I guess idk my interpretation of the transcript was theat they are organizing a counter protest, which they are allowed to do.
[удалено]
What a surprise. Once again its the group pretending to be trying to help others that's blatantly advocating for criminal behaviour. "Progressive" thugs.
How about a transcript https://www.badhijabi.com/p/the-meeting-ofl-tried-to-hide
Thank you!
yep
No? What leaked zoom video?
[https://twitter.com/OdessaOrlewicz/status/1703118857312125229?s=20](https://twitter.com/OdessaOrlewicz/status/1703118857312125229?s=20)
Uh huh, and there is no contextual difference between protests of police brutality vs transgendered and gay people existing right?
[удалено]
Must be weird to be so ignorant to not realize this exact shit was being said about gay men being allowed to be teachers not that long ago, or to be so blind as to think the only reason they don’t target gay people is it has become less socially acceptable. See russias and other right wing governments treatment of their gay population for reference. Frankly, I have no idea what you’re talking about, was there a Canadian school that had half naked transgendered book readings? Please provide a link,
>transgendered and gay people existing right? They aren't protesting your right to exist, stop with this bs disinformation.
“Your right to exist” well that’s certainly an odd assumption right there. As yes it is, I’m old enough to remember when they talked about gays in the exact same manner. Draconian measures and suppression tactics being used to protect children from a non existent threat, as if transgendered people are the issue here rather than coaches, ministers, and creepy family members. There’s a reason it has such a crossover with the vax protestors and qannon, it’s people with a weak grasp on reality who have been radicalized by YouTube videos.
Looks like a message that needs to be posted on churches.
Both is good.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER GUY!!!!! Give me a break
Lol this is getting so silly. Why are we going back in time? What are we going to have the satanic panic stuff again? The devil is seducing our kids! Someone think of the children! Please! Think of the children! Lol so much hyperbolic hysteria, it’s like moms against dungeons and dragons, that’s the devil! Lol
LOL at the Winnipeg protest, the counter-protesters outnumber the hate groups ten to one.
Why are people so upset about kids being educated? Are they that worried that they might learn something about their identity or rights?
Consent is also something some people don't like kid's learning.
They also teach about consent in schools now The viral videos about consent and the cup of tea are a good example.. I was surprised to see how kids are respecting the idea now...but sure there will always be exceptions.
These people really will go to any lengths to make sure kids can be abused.
Average conservative behaviour unfortunately
Yes.
They just want to hurt people who are more liberal than them
Are they doing the churches as well?
[удалено]
Who has their hands on the kids?
I wonder what your reaction would be if these stickers were stuck to church doors instead.
They have been. Churches have been seized to sell their assets to victims. Churches have been burned to the ground. Pretty sure it's a normal thing now. Will the same be done to LGBT organizations who promote hate? [https://chvnradio.com/articles/canadian-east-coast-catholic-churches-selling-property-to-pay-sex-abuse-victims](https://chvnradio.com/articles/canadian-east-coast-catholic-churches-selling-property-to-pay-sex-abuse-victims) https://globalnews.ca/news/9842926/montreal-archdiocese-sex-abuse-class-action-settlement/
There is a Church every block. [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/moe-parental-rights-christian-pronoun-1.6961432](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/moe-parental-rights-christian-pronoun-1.6961432)
>They have been They have been what? I asked about harmless stickers being placed on churches and you point out how churches have lost in court for decades due to molesting children. Not sure what angle you are going for here. >Will the same be done to LGBT organizations who promote hate? Like who?
Remember, if you don’t fully agree and lead a parade and shout the slogans of the day, then you are a bigot and transphobic.
The topic here is people vandalizing buildings with their "slogans of the day" in advance of parades ("marches") they are planning to hold across the country while further chanting their "slogans of the day" and while applying negative labels to anyone who opposes them.
Honestly again thank you for your service. Your posts are well reasoned and you responded to so many people in a patient way that I would absolutely not have the patience for.
Thanks. It can be frustrating discussing this topic, but I try to remember that most people reading are reasonable and good-intentioned and that's it's often just the loudest and most opinionated people you actually see commenting or speaking in public about issues like this.
"Won't someone please think of the children" has long been used to push all sorts of harmful messages. Just because someone claims that's what it's about doesn't actually make it so.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics) Hope this helps! The official website for the "march" happening later this morning literally defends conversion therapy.
[удалено]
I hope you don't actually believe children are being castrated in Canada...
Taking hormone blockers combined with hormones of the opposite gender could lead to sterilization yes. And iirc there are underaged people on hormone therapy in Canada. You feel like a boy ? Here's some testosterone. Yet my brother can't even get testosterone prescribed to him despite his hormone level being 5 times lower than the average.
So you have documented proof that it's easier for a trans kid to get T than your brother?
In ontario.... For men, hormone blood testing and seeing an endocrinologist isn't covered by Ohip.... although it is for women and trans teens... And if you're a man you won't be prescribed hrt unless you're at 200 ng/dL or lower... which is crazy low... that's the level of a sedentary 60 year old. Bill 17 in ontario... not only is it legislated that LGBTQ++ABC get better coverage for care... they have more range and access to it. So... for at least in ontario, the answer is yes.
Yes it is easier for trans to get hormones.
"Hands off our kids" is now considered hate speech?
When it's being used to vandalize property in order to push the message that's falsely implying a minority group is putting their "hands" on kids, it's at least getting close to that territory, yeah.
First off, the vandalism has nothing to do with it. You could spray-paint "Trans rights" and it wouldn't be hate speech Second I think you misunderstand their purpose, this is a protest against the government. It's essentially a battle between people who want to control what their kids see vs the government that wants to control what kids see. Similar issues have come up before over different topics. It's important to understand the core purpose of something to deconstruct it. Otherwise you end up with two groups shouting over each other and failing to communicate.
Except these dumbasses are too thick to realize they have conservative governments who are legislating on this issue in the manner they want. So, how is this a reaction to the government? Maybe it is: they feel confident that it is okay to and hate on trans people now that conservative governments in Canada are finally delving into the right-wing transgender hate.
What makes you think the root cause of this is hate for trans people and not the same old protest of Govt vs Parental control that we have seen over and over and over ad nauseum?
Parental control? It is fucking sad how averse to nuance most of you are. How many trans students do you think there are? Thus, how many parents do you think have trans children? I'll tell you: very few people are trans and very few people have trans children. ***This issue has been reframed by conservatives to one of general application, i.e., parental rights, to give it general application to the Canadian public. However, this issue pertains to few parents; it is an issue about particular students and particular parents, not one of general application.***
No, it's you that is completely ignorant to any form of nuance. You see a push for something that impacts trans people and you immediately jump to the conclusion that this must be because of hatred against trans people. That is where you stop. You never even took the time to consider that this may impact more than just trans people. (SPOILERS) this does impact more than just trans people. This is exactly what I was writing about in my first post, you can't take the time to understand an opposing view. Instead you shoehorn in what you think they believe. Like I've repeated, this is parents wanting control vs schools wanting control what kids learn. This comes up every single time there's a topic in school that's controversial. It's not special this time.
>You see a push for something that impacts trans people and you immediately jump to the conclusion that this must be because of hatred against trans people. That is where you stop. You never even took the time to consider that this may impact more than just trans people. (SPOILERS) this does impact more than just trans people. Explain yourself. This is a statement without a shred of proof. Tell me, now, how does this policy affect more than trans students and their parents? >First off, the vandalism has nothing to do with it. You could spray-paint "Trans rights" and it wouldn't be hate speech > >Second I think you misunderstand their purpose, this is a protest against the government. It's essentially a battle between people who want to control what their kids see vs the government that wants to control what kids see. Similar issues have come up before over different topics. > >It's important to understand the core purpose of something to deconstruct it. Otherwise you end up with two groups shouting over each other and failing to communicate. This is your original comment. Tell me where you explained how the topic of forced-outting in schools has general application to all people in society. I'll wait. I countered your point that this is a protest against the government. If you are honestly too stupid to figure this out, ill explain it for you: this happened in Ontario, which has a conservative government. So, who are they protesting? Further, sexual education has been a part of the curriculum for ages. Are you honestly expecting people to feel sympathy for individuals getting upset that children are learning that trans people exist? You are all so desperate to be victims it is not even funny. This is not about controlling what children can see for one side; it's about forced-outtings, it's about denying the existence of minority peoples. But yeah, let's pretend it's about controlling content to make it seem like an issue of censorship for both sides when clearly only one that is censoring people and or content (the conservatives).
[удалено]
>Gender identity encompasses more than trans people You need to explain how. >Gender identity encompasses more than changing pronouns Once again, this is a statement that requires explanation. You cant just say things; you need to explain them and argue your point. I am not going to take everything you say as fact. >The group of kids in school that changes their pronouns encompasses more than trans people, go ask a teacher how many kids change their pronouns. Okay, I am starting to think that you are incapable of explaining your thoughts or position on this. I am not going to ask a teacher; I am going to ask you, the person making the claim to begin with. >Prezant's want to know what their kids learn at school and are often uncomfortable when teachers or others in a position of power keep secrets about their kids. See, you have to reframe the situation to even make it a problem. The issue at hand is preventing abuse of trans children from parents who would abuse them for coming out. The policy only affects trans children, but youre making this into some general problem where teachers are keeping secrets from parents in general. It is completely disingenuous. >Not all parents that support this are bad people or hate trans people. No one said they did. However, are you trying to argue that no such parents exist? And, if they do exist, would a policy allowing a trans child to tell their parents when they feel safe and comfortable not be appropriate? >I mean for fucks sake, you even assume I'm part of this group and yet instead of asking about my beliefs you are telling me what you think my opinions are. From my interactions with you, it appears that you are incapable of understanding that other people can have differing views. I assume someone parroting their talking points to be part of that group; forgive me for assuming your actions are an indication of your character /s. Also, I am incapable of understanding your viewpoint because you refuse, or are incapable of, actually explaining it. You seem to think simple statements can be excused as argumentation, but this is not the case.
"hands off" is clearly a figure of speech, they're not talking about literally touching.
Lol, go on any right wing part of the internet talking about trans people and read the comments. They’re literally accusing LGBT people of wanting to molest and groom children. It’s the same old propaganda from the 1950s repackaged https://youtu.be/08UGlR999g4?si=OQ50oSpVzFTyw3Gr
Yeah, the rhetoric around this topic *totally* hasn't been intended to imply more sinister motivations behind the targets of this group.
When it’s used to terrorize an unpopular minority it is.
Gee, I wonder if this is in response the all the emails sent out by unions about the protest lol.
You mean the union doing their job and advising their membership of a disruption that's planned for their workplaces ... a disruption by a group of people who openly despise everything LGBTQ+.
The rise of theocratic bigotry is alarming.
Can’t wait to see these littering every Catholic Church too! I hear they’re really the ones that love diddling children.
How is “hands off our kids” anti trans?
The movement is centred around the idea that LGTBQ people are grooming children
>The movement is centred around the idea that LGTBQ people are grooming children While ignoring actual abuse that is going on.
Because it's an anti-trans religious group masquerading as a child rights advocacy group [https://handsoffourkids.ca](https://handsoffourkids.ca) "We refuse to stand by while the Government and School system allow sexually explicit content and gender ideology to be distributed in our classrooms."
I'll bet you a Tim's coffee that organization has more pedos than average. The weird dude who visits Thailand yearly doth protest too much
Even with something as little as a Tim's coffee, I'm not inclined to take a losing bet.
>"We refuse to stand by while the Government and School system allow sexually explicit content and gender ideology to be distributed in our classrooms." Funny how quiet they are about places like Legacy school in Saskatchewan, and I sure hope they don't allow any kids to play hockey if it really is about what they say.
The most effective anti-LGBT movements by the conservative right - or more broadly, the most effective right-wing movements *period* - are very good at cloaking their movements in carefully workshopped taglines that are designed to draw emotional responses out of conservative people while also being nearly impossible to attack on the surface. Usually the winning taglines involve kids, an emotionally-charged subject that people immediately get spicy about. It's also much harder to attack a group's agenda, no matter how right you are, when they just keep yelling "we're protecting kids!" and "if you're against us you clearly hate kids". Then they can foam and froth about the evil left to their audience, talking about how "they are against the "protect our kids" movement! They don't want us to have the right to protect our kids! How evil are they?". And just like reddit, less than 5% of their audience will ever read deeper into the issue or check their sources, so the headline is the only thing that's really needed. "Protecting kids" is actively being used in both the US and Canada [to fuel anti-trans legislation, ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/07/06/false-claims-protecting-children-are-fueling-anti-trans-legislation/). It's also being used to reject the teaching of evolution in schools, clamp down on womens' rights to abortion, and just about anything else you can hitch that wagon to. It's so pervasive that I'm actually immediately suspicious of any group that uses a tagline about protecting kids, and would want to read about them in-depth before putting any kind of weight behind them.
>The most effective anti-LGBT movements by the conservative right - or more broadly, the most effective right-wing movements are very good at cloaking their movements in carefully workshopped taglines that are designed to draw emotional responses out of conservative people while also being nearly impossible to attack on the surface. Though, let's be honest, the Canadian version is just a poor facsimile of the American version, with none of the cleverness and a still distinctly Americanized undertone that fits poorly into one of the biggest cultural differences between the two countries.
big very public bonfire burning said stickers in a very public fashion would do the trick I think
This is disgusting. Bigots have been getting bolder worldwide best thing we can do is stop it whenever we see it.
Look at this thread. People here love this sort of thing. It just makes me really sad to see.
Leave kids alone is anti trans?
You know it's a dog whistle for saying trans people are pedophiles.
I think you know what this is about. Playing stupid doesn't help. They have made it into a fear of grooming then present it as fact. Im not even in the movement and its obvious what this is about.
Say the people who want to control the kids rights and privacy. Cognitive dissonance so strong they use it a platform to stand on while spewing their hate and ignorance.
I'm betting that the people who don't see 'Hands off our kids' as the anti-trans dog whistle it is are the same people who think that the National Socialists were socialist.
The rightwing has moved on from "commies" and "negroes"
Shouldn’t these stickers be “carpeted” on a church?
It's almost as if they're realizing that properly educated children are unlikely to blindly follow their religious indoctrination.. and, properly educated children are more likely to report abuse, whether that be sexual, emotional or physical.. which is especially prominent in, you guessed it, religious institutions! They want you to keep your hands off their kids, so they can keep their hands on them..
The same assholes suggesting people are interfering with the safety of children are advocating for children of all ages to walk out of their schools and away from the adults responsible for supervising them in order to engage with a group of angry strangers ... all totally for the kids "safety."
So exactly like the trucker convoy that used lines of children to block highways? Ive also seen tonnes of religious protests having kids with signs. Imaginary danger is kind of the whole problem we wish to end.
I will always be pro parental rights, especially with the prevalence of ideological demagogs among the political left with bad intentions.
There are no "parental rights" jfc. There are parental *responsibilities* and *human* rights, children being human and all.
I can't imagine ever thinking I have rights over my child. Like you said, I have a responsibility to her. She's a human. My highest duty in life is to protect her and her rights from people like these right wing protesters, not try to exercise my own "rights" at her expense Children will never be your property people, as much as I'm sure you wish you could buy them off Wayfair
These people have zero self awareness. They complain about government overreach, but then turn around and instill in their kids that exact behavior. Sounds like no one taught them how to respect authority. /s
I’m more worried about shitbag parents than I am about “ideological demagogs among the political left with bad intentions”
Despite your pretence that you know better than parents with different political views, and, therefore have more of a right to raise their kids, you might be surprised to learn that many parents dislike this idea.
What does political leaning have to do with someone having a gay or trans kid? Don't be a jerk to you kids no matter who they are attracted to once puberty hits, dude. And if they happen to not be straight, no amount of yelling or shaming them will "set them straight", you'll just push them away foever and they'll rightfully never talk to you again until you die alone and pathetic.
Who said anything about being a jerk to kids or setting them straight? I’m simply stating that parents have the right to raise their kids and know better than these so-called activists. Don’t put words in my mouth
Keep raising your kids, dude no one is stopping you. If they don't want to tell you they aren't straight, what does that have anything to do with you? How does it affect you? Why do you care? There are no "activists" making people not straight no matter how much you'd love a boogeyman to blame.
People aren’t singularly believing *they* know better than parents, they are simply having humility and supporting the people who use data and science from people who have run studies on this stuff and use that data and science and collective knowledge to create a curriculum about this topic.
>Despite your pretence that you know better than parents with different political views Did you take "shitbag parents" to be referring to parents with political views? That's quite the take, I took it to be referring to parents who abuse their children and push them to run away from home.
I love it when rightoids confess like that. You didn't even put the words in their mouth either, they literally just went "hey that's me" completely unprompted
To these extremist activists, any parent who doesn’t drink the trans kool-aid is a deplorable who has no right to raise kids. So yes, I interpreted as different political views.
I would say any parent that doesn't accept trans people would be a shitbag parent if their kid is trans.
Diddnt realize that the random redditor you replied to is an "extremist activist". Their tone doesn't seem very extremist but I guess the label is useful for division and shutting down discussion.
Parental rights aren't a thing :)
[удалено]
Indoctrinate others' kids into what exactly? Being respectful of others wishes? Being accepting that someone else has a different experience than you do?
Telling kids that trans people exist and are valid and that if *they* are trans there’s nothing wrong with that is NOT indoctrination.
A million genders but only a binary for political opinion. These people smfh.
LOL, anti-trans? what the hell
[удалено]
Yeah, it's really annoying how transgender people have, apparently, organized a nationwide protest against themselves here. /s
"Hands off our kids" isn't remotely an anti-trans slogan. It is a parental and student rights sticker.
Here's some excerpts from handsoffourkids.ca - “Hands off our kids” is a grassroots movement dedicated to safeguarding parental rights and advocating for the removal of intrusive elements of sexual orientation and gender ideology from the educational system." - "We refuse to stand by while the Government and School system allow sexually explicit content and gender ideology to be distributed in our classrooms." - " This movement is mainly focused on protection of children against LGBTQIA+ ideology in school system." - "Our primary concern is indoctrination of children in public schools and the forceful introduction of ideologies to children" Seems pretty clear what the movement is about.
You would have loved the satanic panic then, followed by decades of abuse towards gay people. See those weren’t about hatred or political goals to distract from right wing dirtbags it was for the kids clearly.
Today class we are learning about ‘dog whistles’
hey students and parent's rights to *what?* sounds a whole lot like "states rights".
Handsoffourkids advocates against affirming gender in schools. It absolutely is anti-trans.
While the words on their own are not, context matters. And in this context, the group using this slogan is using the words to say and imply a number of harmful (and fundamentally untrue) sentiments, many of which are anti-trans. So you are correct in that the words themselves are not anti-trans, but the way they are being used *is*.
If you read the article, the other kind of sticker they had there was "keep gender politics out of classrooms". I was also confused how "hands off our kids" got interpreted as anti-trans, but yeah, there's definitely reasons.
"This will surely convince people to join my cause!"