Gay Life in Canadian Cities

[someone123]

Originally Posted by 240glt

This is kind-of how things appear ever since the fracas about the parade. Now all of a sudden we're the oppressors and the privileged ones. It's bizarre. I had to look up certain terms like CIS while following the story. I'd never heard of these things before.

I do admit I've moderated my stance on this quite a bit though. I still don't agree with banning police officers in uniform (my S.O. was an Alberta Sherriff for over 15 years before moving to a directorship with the government, and both my in-laws were Edmonton Police officers) But I do see the point about some people feeling left out, or not represented or marginalized. It's become a big street party when maybe that's not the direction it should be going. I personally don't feel marginalized, endangered or discriminated against in any way even despite some of the disgusting vile people running the province right now including the Premier, but a lot of people do. I made the mistake of opening my Twitter acct. for the first time in years though just to get some different opinions and the shrieking hysterics from both sides was nauseating. I'm glad we don't participate at all quite frankly.

I should say that I don't have any strong opinion one way or the other on the Edmonton stuff. I've noticed a relative lack of facts (not counting a priori assumptions based on race, i.e. racial prejudice) and a lot of opinions. One source of facts was the list of demands and they are pretty bad. For example, the two organizations demanded that Edmonton Pride pay them $20,000 each.

This doesn't prove that the Edmonton Pride society handled everything well but I have a hard time thinking of them as cartoon villains fighting against ransom-letter-issuing heroes!

The demands look like the hazy writing of undergrad activists who wanted to write their own Black Lives Matter style manifesto. I doubt they connect well with the real problems of people in Edmonton.

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by ssiguy
I can't believe people even go to these things anymore.

Certainly when they began 40 years ago they were pertinent and had a political reason for their being but today Pride parades have as much to do about gay rights as the Santa Claus parade does about the birth of Christ. They are nothing more than business ventures and a place for the city to make money on the tourist trade.

With more hate speech and yellow vests and fanatical religious groups out there today I think it's more important than ever to show support in presences at these events including Pride Marches and Parades.

There are still parts of the country in bible belt areas such as Southern Manitoba, Southern Ontario and lower mainland BC where celebrating LGBTQ rights are questioned.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...ests-1.4738107

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/several-in...004108950.html

https://globalnews.ca/news/5397489/l...wn-pride-flag/

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/surrey-rcmp-ra...ters-1.4480273



Also not until there is support for these events right from the top can we expect change to happen.
Saskatchewan is one of only a handful of Provinces that has had an acting Premier march in a Pride Parade such as Scott Moe for Saskatoon's Pride Parade this last Saturday.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...tory-1.5178926

https://www.estevanmercury.ca/sask-p...oon-1.23864520



Moose Jaw has come a long way in 41 years when it held it's first LGBTQ march. Nothing really phases the city's populace these days, whether it be a LGBTQ mural or rainbow street benches.


A grant from the Saskatchewan Arts Board brought in acts like Ru Paul Drag Race’s Coco Montrese for Moose Jaw Pride earlier this month.


Jordan Dyck and Renn and Skylar Forsberg were the grand marshals of the Moose Jaw Pride Parade, who helped lead the movement which resulted in gender markers being allowed to be removed from government identification in Saskatchewan.
“It was a landmark case in Canada, and around the world and we’re very proud to honour them,” said Joe Wickenhauser, executive director of Moose Jaw Pride.



https://globalnews.ca/news/5323264/m...aw-pride-week/

Originally Posted by ciudad_del_norte

Late to the game here, but need to point out that this is a pretty dramatic misunderstanding and oversimplification of what actually happened. This was nothing about oppression of gay rights by race related fringe rights groups. It's part of an ongoing question as to the degree to which pride is inclusive - even to the extent of becoming political and controversial. The parade wasn't cancelled because the white LGBTQ community was oppressed or threatened and so unable to have a party. The parade was cancelled because the committee was unable to make strides with the more marginalized groups, and made a series of poor decisions eventually loosing the support and faith of large parts of the community as a whole.

I'm not involved in either side - but be aware of the potential harm you do by making this sound like a bunch of "race related fringe rights group" were out to oppress the gays.

In fact, characterizing the situation as such is a good example of exactly what many find problematic within the LG community (for what its worth BTQ folks are typically a bit more marginalized so seem to be more aware of the issues here).

There are plenty of real contemporary examples about how LGBTQ rights aren't "resolved" - look at the current government in AB. But the cancellation of Edmonton's parade this year isn't that.

The Edmonton Pride Festival Society was issued a list of demands by Shades of Color and RaricaNow QTIBPOC, including ending the Pride Parade, & each group to receive $20,000 a year in funding and EPFS to write a public accountability statement outlining the harm the EPFS has caused the QTIBPOC community and a public commitment to rectifying this harm...among a list of other demands.

EPFS scheduled a meeting with each of the invited four representatives of the groups requesting the demands, to speak to the EPFS membership. EPFS told the groups they could only have four people attend because of limited capacity in the meeting room.

When a group of protesters entered the meeting area, EPFS were told “it was all of them or no one.” EPFS were fearful for their safety and the safety of others, called the police and moved the meeting to another location.

“Indeed, several of our board members and staff were pushed and shoved. One board member was cornered and yelled at and told they were not allowed to leave.”
“We’ve suffered assault, we’ve suffered intimidation, we’ve suffered verbal assault as well, so having a loud, screaming group of people coming into quite a small building and to be pushed was triggering for us.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/5154261/2...d-email-april/

Originally Posted by ciudad_del_norte

...they are just asking if they can be included

Ciudad_del_norte, even though you feel 'White gays simply are more privileged', all groups marching together as one group in solidarity would ultimately be the best solution for entire LGBTQ2S+ community.

My husband & I watched the UK movie from a few years ago called 'Pride' this last week at a Saskatoon Pride festival function. It illustrated how a small LGBT group from London rallied around a Union of striking Welsh miners back in the 1980's. Although both groups were a reluctant mix, the LGBT group and the miners were eventually able to get past their differences and when the strike finally ended, that following year, bus loads of Union of miners travelled to London & marched in the Pride Parade in London helping to establish rights for LGBT workers across the entire United Kingdom.

• Video Link

[vid]

Originally Posted by Wrecked em

My way of celebrating gay pride is to quietly not give a shit what two (or more, giggity) consenting adults do with each other’s private parts. I hope that doesn’t make me a monster

Are you willing to convince others to think the way you do, or are you OK with letting them behave otherwise?

[SignalHillHiker]

So, the Anglican Church in Canada is apparently deciding not to proceed with marriage equality at a Canadian synod taking place now, or just wrapped up, or whatever, I don't know - but it was the talk of the Pride parade.

The churches here are furious... the Anglican Cathedral has Pride flags on basically every surface - dozens on the fences around the property alone. And Anglican churches throughout the city are holding prayer sessions and the like to pray the church moves forward. There were SO many Anglican priests and congregations in/at the Pride parade, including a friend's parents who only went because they're so pissed off.

And now, the Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Eastern Newfoundland has said 9/38 of its parishes have requested permission to grant same-sex weddings. He was holding off to see what the Canadian church would do, and because he didn't want to exceed his authority. But now he will be holding a Newfoundland and Labrador synod and will respond to those requests then, all but confirming the local church will allow same-sex weddings even if Canada doesn't.

[vid]

I don't see what the big deal is. Young people will leave and the churches will die. That's a good thing, in my books. The less religion, the better.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by someone123

There is very little sense of scale. If you're in the most progressive 0.1% of the population, you can easily become "worse than Hitler" because you said 99% of the right stuff instead of 100% of the right stuff.

As the rhetoric becomes more extreme we will see more fault lines. Trans rights are a bit of a tricky subject. In some circles, it is taboo to admit the existence of biological sex (as in XX and XY chromosomes do not matter). And I have sometimes seen shaming for not accepting trans people in terms of physical attraction, e.g. you are a monster if you care if somebody you sleep with has a penis or vagina. These extreme positions are going to cause problems.

I've also recently seen arguments on social media where people have asserted that it is 100% not okay for a straight man (or lesbian) to prefer female sexual partners who have vaginas over female sexual partners who lack vaginas, and have penises. Or the straight woman / gay male equivalent scenario. People who are bisexual have absolutely no excuse to not want to have sex with anyone, because they're "attracted to both types of genitals". This was not satire.

While I can sympathize that being trans would likely make dating more challenging/limit the pool, and that there are elements of danger in terms of what trans people disclose to potential partners (and when), this was the moment where I felt like things had finally jumped the shark. If no one is entitled to sex, then no one should be shamed for declining to have sex with anybody, regardless of the reason.

(For the record I don't think that these views represent the majority of any particular group.)

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by mousquet

I wouldn't like to be an asshole or a bitch to you guys here, but it's often not so hard for a heterosexual male to seduce a so-called lesbian. There's no need for beating them at all, eh.
You just give them a hot but not too greedy kiss on their shoulder or neck, then here we go, they want you.
Anybody who's once been a nightclubbing idiotic slut in their lifetime is well aware.

I'm not sure what things are like in France these days but this would not resonate with a lot of North Americans today. Things have changed dramatically over the last ~10 years (as in 10 years ago I might have agreed with you) but giving a girl, especially a lesbian, an unsolicited "hot but not too greedy kiss on their shoulder or neck" would absolutely be considered sexual harassment/assault... if you come to Canada I would strongly urge you not to try this.

I tend to let the women make the first move these days. Even the lesbians. ESPECIALLY the lesbians. And I generally agree with their reasoning behind this, even if it means missing out on a few "ones that got away".

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I've also recently seen arguments on social media where people have asserted that it is 100% not okay for a straight man (or lesbian) to prefer female sexual partners who have vaginas over female sexual partners who lack vaginas, and have penises. Or the straight woman / gay male equivalent scenario. People who are bisexual have absolutely no excuse to not want to have sex with anyone, because they're "attracted to both types of genitals". This was not satire.

While I can sympathize that being trans would likely make dating more challenging/limit the pool, and that there are elements of danger in terms of what trans people disclose to potential partners (and when), this was the moment where I felt like things had finally jumped the shark. If no one is entitled to sex, then no one should be shamed for declining to have sex with anybody, regardless of the reason.

(For the record I don't think that these views represent the majority of any particular group.)

The same people who are so "progressives" are saying white people can't be victims of racism. The left ideaology has gotten too far, especially in the anglosphere. This will just result in the centrists turning to the right, which then everyone loses.

Inclusivity meant that you could be free to be yourself and you were to get accepted even if you were different, now it means to be free of ideas and conform to the group to not offend or trigger anyone. It's really a dangerous mindset.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

So, the Anglican Church in Canada is apparently deciding not to proceed with marriage equality at a Canadian synod taking place now, or just wrapped up, or whatever, I don't know - but it was the talk of the Pride parade.

The churches here are furious... the Anglican Cathedral has Pride flags on basically every surface - dozens on the fences around the property alone. And Anglican churches throughout the city are holding prayer sessions and the like to pray the church moves forward. There were SO many Anglican priests and congregations in/at the Pride parade, including a friend's parents who only went because they're so pissed off.

And now, the Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Eastern Newfoundland has said 9/38 of its parishes have requested permission to grant same-sex weddings. He was holding off to see what the Canadian church would do, and because he didn't want to exceed his authority. But now he will be holding a Newfoundland and Labrador synod and will respond to those requests then, all but confirming the local church will allow same-sex weddings even if Canada doesn't.

With the Anglican Church it all comes down to the black members. I’m sorry to say. My dads friend is high up in the Anglican Church here in Manitoba. He is from Jamaica. He is black, it’s just a fact that priests from Africa and the the Caribbean are notoriously homophobic. They are the reason the votes always fail.

[kwoldtimer]

[QUOTE=Hecate;8632630]With the Anglican Church it all comes down to the black members. I’m sorry to say. My dads friend is high up in the Anglican Church here in Manitoba. He is from Jamaica. He is black, it’s just a fact that priests from Africa and the the Caribbean are notoriously homophobic. They are the reason the votes always fail.[/QUOTE]

It wasn't the clergy or the congregations that voted down the resolution, it was the bishops. Although the bishops were no doubt taking in to account that number of clergy that might have broken with the Church had the resolution been approved again.

[CityTech]

Apparently the clergy and the congregation members are both over two-thirds in favour of the change. That's a pretty solid consensus. From the bishops point of view, losing maybe 25%-30% of the clergy that refuse to back the idea might hurt, but this will hurt the church way more because they will lose many of their members. A socially liberal worldview is the only thing keeping mainline Protestantism alive.

[someone123]

Some scenes from Halifax's pride parade. Attendance was around 150,000.


Source


Source


Source


Source


Source


Source

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

The same people who are so "progressives" are saying white people can't be victims of racism. The left ideaology has gotten too far, especially in the anglosphere. This will just result in the centrists turning to the right, which then everyone loses.

Inclusivity meant that you could be free to be yourself and you were to get accepted even if you were different, now it means to be free of ideas and conform to the group to not offend or trigger anyone. It's really a dangerous mindset.

within the gay community itself its hard to know what is what now.

Older generations, even those in our 40s, who are used to terms used are told off by the younger ones that that term is no longer allowed, such as Tranny, thats a big nono but back in the day was common.

Bisexuals are now more likely to identify themselves as "fluid"

and there is a new pride flag that is more inclusive that represents the leather and bear etc community and the transgenders.


cms.qz.com

The new tales of the city on netflix really dealt with how different the gay community of 2019 is, really opened my eyes to just how different it is from 25 years ago.

There has also been a lot more discussion/articles on how pride has become so corporate and are companies that put rainbow flags on everything in the month of june exploiting the pride movement or helping the movement etc. Are they actually making a difference, are companies protecting their rights or just slapping on the rainbow flag on t-shirts, mugs, etc. Everyone from Starbucks to Michael Kors has a pride collection now.


southcoastplaza.com




designweek


gaytimes.co.uk

[someone123]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

Bisexuals are now more likely to identify themselves as "fluid"

If you live in most of Canada or in a liberal part of the US, having a nonstandard sexual or gender identity is seen as cool now and there isn't much social cost. So there has been a proliferation of people with identities like "fluid". You might for example find a girl who has only dated guys and looks pretty normal but considers herself pansexual and gender fluid.

In the bad old days it went the other way; you'd encounter men who were exclusively gay but would hesitantly admit to being "bi". Straight people would shake their head at this and consider it gross but at least there was a prospect of eventual redemption through a future monogamous relationship with a woman.

People should pick what labels they want. What I also find though is that more and more young people (particularly in the US) consider themselves crusaders fighting oppression even though the de facto oppression where they live is shrinking away to virtually nothing. And of course they tend to be very intolerant of the older folk who actually did live through oppression because they don't use the right woke lingo (I mean 50 and 60+ years olds; I don't consider myself to be in this group). I prefer the culture of the older gay guys by a huge margin. It tends to be friendlier, more authentic, and also more sexual. It's an enormous tragedy that so many from this generation died younger than they should have; maybe this is part of why 2SLGBTQQIA+ culture has taken such an immature turn. It's full of 22 year olds ironically convinced that people who don't act and think exactly how they do are intolerant monsters! I'd tell them to stay off my lawn if I could afford one.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by someone123

If you live in most of Canada or in a liberal part of the US, having a nonstandard sexual or gender identity is seen as cool now and there isn't much social cost. So there has been a proliferation of people with identities like "fluid". You might for example find a girl who has only dated guys and looks pretty normal but considers herself pansexual and gender fluid.

In the bad old days it went the other way; you'd encounter men who were exclusively gay but would hesitantly admit to being "bi". Straight people would shake their head at this and consider it gross but at least there was a prospect of eventual redemption through a future monogamous relationship with a woman.

People should pick what labels they want. What I also find though is that more and more young people (particularly in the US) consider themselves crusaders fighting oppression even though the de facto oppression where they live is shrinking away to virtually nothing. And of course they tend to be very intolerant of the older folk who actually did live through oppression because they don't use the right woke lingo (I mean 50 and 60+ years olds; I don't consider myself to be in this group). I prefer the culture of the older gay guys by a huge margin. It tends to be friendlier, more authentic, and also more sexual. It's an enormous tragedy that so many from this generation died younger than they should have; maybe this is part of why 2SLGBTQQIA+ culture has taken such an immature turn. It's full of 22 year olds ironically convinced that people who don't act and think exactly how they do are intolerant monsters! I'd tell them to stay off my lawn if I could afford one.

Better expressed than I could. Again, facts don't matter much with these 22 year olds. I'm a millenial that usually dates 50-60yo because I can't stand that PC bullshit. Being outraged all the time is not a sane thing to do.

Maybe I'm just a conservative at heart who just wants to be a housewife to a handsome daddy... Yeah, I'm that stage now.

[SpongeG]

I was listening to an interview on Radio Andy on Sirius yesterday with the guy who directed the Whitney Documentary and Andy said something about Whitney being Bisexual and then corrected himself and said if it was today we would say she was Fluid.

[zahav]

Originally Posted by someone123

If you live in most of Canada or in a liberal part of the US, having a nonstandard sexual or gender identity is seen as cool now and there isn't much social cost. So there has been a proliferation of people with identities like "fluid". You might for example find a girl who has only dated guys and looks pretty normal but considers herself pansexual and gender fluid.

In the bad old days it went the other way; you'd encounter men who were exclusively gay but would hesitantly admit to being "bi". Straight people would shake their head at this and consider it gross but at least there was a prospect of eventual redemption through a future monogamous relationship with a woman.

People should pick what labels they want. What I also find though is that more and more young people (particularly in the US) consider themselves crusaders fighting oppression even though the de facto oppression where they live is shrinking away to virtually nothing. And of course they tend to be very intolerant of the older folk who actually did live through oppression because they don't use the right woke lingo (I mean 50 and 60+ years olds; I don't consider myself to be in this group). I prefer the culture of the older gay guys by a huge margin. It tends to be friendlier, more authentic, and also more sexual. It's an enormous tragedy that so many from this generation died younger than they should have; maybe this is part of why 2SLGBTQQIA+ culture has taken such an immature turn. It's full of 22 year olds ironically convinced that people who don't act and think exactly how they do are intolerant monsters! I'd tell them to stay off my lawn if I could afford one.

Ya couldn't have said it better myself. And I too am technically a millenial but part of the older cohort. People are way too out of control now and the PC police have swung completely the other way

[vid]

Yeah, political correctness is insane. I recently got in trouble for saying "musulman", apparently it's "musulperson" now.

Surprised that's allowed even, it'll be "musulperoffspring" soon.





I have nothing concrete to add to the discussion, I just wanted to make the musulperson joke because it was ignored in my two other group chats.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by vid

Yeah, political correctness is insane. I recently got in trouble for saying "musulman", apparently it's "musulperson" now.

Surprised that's allowed even, it'll be "musulperoffspring" soon.





I have nothing concrete to add to the discussion, I just wanted to make the musulperson joke because it was ignored in my two other group chats.

It's just that it's written as muzzle, not musul.

[vid]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

It's just that it's written as muzzle, not musul.

"Hi, my name is Fatimx, my pronouns are xir/it and I'm a muzzlemxn"

Apparently "latinx" is actually pronounced "latinks"? I don't know if you guys noticed but I gave up on being a grammar nazi a couple years ago because it's all just changing too fast.

This post might be something that I should only send in a private message so that someone can dig it up 12 years from now to destroy my political career.

Originally Posted by SpongeG

Bisexuals are now more likely to identify themselves as "fluid"

and there is a new pride flag that is more inclusive that represents the leather and bear etc community and the transgenders.


cms.qz.com

I thought the black was for black people and the brown was for brown people? If the black one is for leather shouldn't the brown one be for the guys who eat poop? Honestly at this point might as well add a black and white bar for the straights so that they stop feeling so left out.