I wonder how he would label post-op trans women. They still have a Y chromosome, and are therefore “biological males.”

Lesbians are perfectly capable of ogling women in those spaces anyway.

Yeah, but that’s OK since it’s sexy and makes his little PP hard.

Pretty simple from his point of view: He would rather you get assaulted, beaten, raped, and murdered.

I’m sorry you have to go through this shit.

Ford doesn’t have any special tolerance or respect for trans rights, he just knows it’s a cannof worms that doesn’t benefit him to open.

Make no mistake - he’d kneecap a trans person at least as quickly as anyone else for stiffing him on drug payments; and probably add an extra few kicks for being a freak; but that’s personal, and his business dealings (mob-backed government) aren’t helped by declaring war on trans folks.

Everything you say is true, I just don’t believe in my heart that she would lose.

When she got the leadership nomination, we were cheering. “The UCP just lost the electiom by electing that psycho!”

Higgs scares me too. I’m appalled by the devolution of trans rights in AB and SK, but politicians gunning to increase corporate power, gut the public sector, and reduce labour’s power really unsettles me vis-a-vis the direction we’re heading in.

Trust me, Smith is still taking enough time away from attacking the trans community to destroy healthcare and then sell it to her corporate friends. Same with education. As for unions, the secret wage limits Kenney imposed were just opening the door to Smith’s plans.

…and yet, she’d get reelected today.

She would, and she will. Rachel Notley has stepped down because she knows she can’t beat the UCP (or any single right-wing party), no matter what deranged psychopath is running it.

Worst of all, Poilievre is courting her hard - and has every intention of copying every one of her policies that can translate to the national arena.

Now about public enemy no. 1 for car theft being car thieves?
After that, negligent manufacturers.

Nah, let’s attack tools instead.

“Pierre Poilievre supports plan to kill trans youths.”

That’s it. Smith’s plan will kill people, and Poilievre supports it.

They’re going to spin this into ‘caring,’ but it’s bullshit. Manulife should be beaten down HARD for even attempting - for even CONSIDERING - this level of evil.

The only thing that is assumed is that all of our evidence so far is valid, and human nature hasn’t fundamentally changed suddenly.

It’s easy to say that people will die as a result of this legislation because we’ve seen it happen already. Suicide rates among trans youth go up when protections are removed. Forcing teachers to involve parents in dangerous situations isn’t just harmful, it is INTENTIONALLY harmful.

deleted by creator

Good on Danielle, for really stepping up her game.

Previously she was letting people die from lack of healthcare and support, but she’s finally stepped up to the plate and announced that she’s willing to commit murder.

Stealing this from a post on Mastodon, just to provide some clarity.

1. The judge said he would have supported invoking #EmergenciesAct had he been sitting at the cabinet table. With the information they had at the time, Cabinet did the right thing.

2. It’s only with the benefit of hindsight, which the federal cabinet did not have, that the judge determines they erred.

3. Invoking the Act in #Ottawa & #Ontario was proper. He merely disputes invoking it nation-wide.

This is also why the one thing Trudeau could do to make me respect him would be say, “I’m stepping down as leader. My last act as PM is to roll out legitimate proportional representation.”

The Liberals are probably not going to win the next election no matter what; but legitimate reform would mean an end to autocratic majorities.

I’m in IT, and ALL of my work is remote, even when I’m in the office. My company started out at 2 days/week. A few months ago they bumped up to 3d/week in the office.

It’s a small change, but it’s very much a power move. Two days says “We would like to see you in the office, socializing with your coworkers, building a team.” Three days says “We can’t trust you to work from home. This is only the first squeeze.”

I push it to the limit during the winter because winter sucks and it takes longer to drive or bus than walk (45 minutes). If they fire me, they fire me. I will not make myself miserable over a particular job; and if they try to make things miserable, they’ll lose a lot of talented staff.

1. First and foremost, the legal declaration that Quebec is a unilingual province. We’re a bilingual country. Maybe we should forbid offering services in French in the rest of the country.
2. The cap on English-language CEGEPs. “Sorry, but we’ve hit our limit for your kind of people.”
3. Judges no longer need to be fluent in anything other than French. How does that allow for trials in English? (And even if you can find a bilingual judge, getting them to hear the case will be onerous.)
4. Businesses with 25 or more employees will be legally required to operate in French - complete with certificates, committees, and inspections. God help you if your employees start talking to each other in their native language!
5. Refugees and immigrants will be denied access to services in any other languages after six months.

While it’s true that most of the country doesn’t have a requirement to offer services in both official languages, there’s only one province that is trying to actively and aggressively forbid it. That’s not protectionism, that’s punishment.

My first thought is “good.”

Quebec’s language laws have always been punitive, under the guise of protectionism. I can only imagine what people would say if the government here in Alberta decided to pull the same shit against French speakers. (And with Smith in power, it’s entirely possible!)

If you really must, declare a provincial dominant language; then step aside and stop trying to actively harm people for speaking English.

You’re right, of course. We can’t eliminate them.

But there are a lot of things that can be eliminated or reduced. Banning plastic bags and straws may be the most irritating examples, but they’re also highly visible ones.

You mention that, “Not everyone can afford to lay out $100 to save $10 over the next five years…” which sadly accurately echoes both Pratchett and Baldwin. It’s expensive to be poor. I’m happy to not be poor, and I just spent $300 on some boots I expect to last for a decade - maybe even twice that with an occasional resoleing. Sadly, shoes that cost 1/4 that will last less than 1/10 as long; but if you can’t drop that kind of money, you’re stuck spending more over time on shitty footwear.

(and don’t get me started on banking and fees!)

Where am I going with this? I’m not sure. On the one hand, we need to do much much better at not buying disposable garbage; on the other hand, we need to fix our socioeconomic system to make disposable garbage less desirable or necessary. In short, we need to do better - and mostly we need to do better for those who can’t afford to do so on their own.

As an aside, I considered health care waste, which is enormous; but gave it a pass for exactly the reasons you mention; but when I consider the amount of one-time plastic waste generated by 6-hour oxygen tank valve seals, there’s room for improvement there as well.

I find that used snacks aren’t that tasty.

I laughed at this.