2 Responses to “Waiting”

• #1

  Mostly Cloudy

  March 7, 2024 at 3:15 pm

  You could try emailing them and asking why they aren’t covering this story.
• #2

  Your Name's not Bruce?

  March 7, 2024 at 8:54 pm

  It would show up how dishonest any of their reporting on “gender affirming care” was, how fully they have been supporting the dogma under a guise of impartiality. Maybe just a bit too much to swallow.

  In Canada, even the National Post (a right-ish newspaper that is no fan of the Trudeau Liberals) uses scare quotes around “biological males” when discussing Conservative leader Poilievre’s support for women’s single sex spaces:

  https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/poilievre-says-female-spaces-should-be-exclusively-for-females-not-for-biological-males

  Even the Post uses the same trans-approved phraseology that we’ve seen elsewhere:

  Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre agrees with the idea of banning transgender women from participating in female sports and accessing “women-only” spaces like changing rooms and washrooms, but did not commit to introducing legislation to do so.

  “Female spaces should be exclusively for females, not for biological males,” he said during a press conference in Kitchener, Ont., Wednesday.

  (They’re not any kind of women, so stop calling them that.)

  Poilievre said that many gender-related spaces are either provincially or municipally regulated and cannot be legislated by the federal government, so “it is unclear” what a future Conservative government could do to restrict them to girls and women who were born female.

  (Who are, of course the only people who are female; there are no girls or women who were not born female. Stop suggesting there are.)

  So even in instances where a Conservative politician is being reasonably clear, a putatively “right wing” newspaper rushes in to rephrase things into genderspeak. Calling trans identified males “transgender women,” or implying that there are any girls are women who weren’t born female, is not a neutral, unbiased position. It is indicative of having taken a side, and acting as a defacto supporter and propagandist for it. It can’t help but slant coverage when they present a conentious public issue almost exclusively through the use of the viewpoint, terms, and phraseology favoured by only one of the parties to the discussion, a discussion which would not be occuring at all if that same side had had its way. Are they afraid of causing offence, or hurting someone’s feelings? If that’s the case their indulgent scrupulousness is coming at the expense of clarity and public understanding.