Drag queen flashes young children at ‘Drag Queen Story Hour’
Within the last decade or so, drag queens went from being a niche and esoteric art form intended for adult audiences, to a growing worldwide phenomenon with millions upon millions of fans.
With drag’s massive boost in popularity came the intersecting of drag and children. Across the United States and Canada, drag queens have been asked to participate in Drag Queen Story Hour, and events of a similar nature.
Across Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, millions commemorate the sacrifices made by their respective armies and the great sacrifices made in the fight against tyranny. They do so by wearing a commemorative poppy, made of paper or fabric and traditionally made with red material and a black centre.
Sales of poppies in Canada go towards the Legion Poppy Fund to provide financial assistance to veterans, as they do in the other aforementioned countries.
There already exists certain variances of poppies, including a purple one that remembers animals who served in wartime, namely horses and dogs, of which there were large numbers of casualties.
And now, some are attempting to introduce the “rainbow poppy.” A Rainbow-coloured lapel pin that was made with the intention of honouring fallen soldiers of the LGBT community during armed conflict.
The pin, which is being sold on eBay for £6 (about $10), and many are on board with the idea of the rainbow-pin.
“I want a #rainbowpoppy, gay servicemen and women were dishonourably discharged or ever killed, even though their sacrifice was the same. Alan Turing is a key example. There has been a purple poppy out for YEARS now… so get the hell over it,” said Twitter user Nathanial Howarth.
With Twitter divided on the topic, as per usual, some quick reading on the topic should be done. According to the Royal Canadian Legion, altering the poppy is a sign of disrespect. Says the Legion’s website: “The poppy is the sacred symbol of remembrance and should not be defaced in any way.”
Though the purple poppy could be propped up as a prime example of “defacing” a poppy, the purple poppy does actually occur in nature, unlike the rainbow variant.
Others pointed out that other variances, like the black poppy that commemorates African and Caribbean allies, and that having a rainbow poppy is appropriate. Again, this is thwarted by the fact that black poppies exist in nature.
Not only this, but some are beginning to feel as though LGBT Pride movements have started to encroach on the day-to-day of others. Twitter user @Chibbard01, pointed out that LGBT pride already has its time and place in the year. “Pride has a whole month to raise awareness. Soldiers who died and fought for us have one MINUTE a year. Get some respect!”
The month of June was selected to represent LGBT pride month due to the Stonewall riots, riots which were sparked by the raiding of a New York gay bar run by the Genovese crime family.
There is also an LGBT history month observed in October throughout the United States and Canada.
Word spread quickly on social media this evening that Simon Fraser University has backed out of its decision to host the event entitled “#GIDYVR: How Media Bias Shapes the Gender Identity Debate” on November 2nd.
In addition to Vancouver feminist Meghan Murphy, the event was slated to feature Quillette Canadian editor Jonathan Kay and The Post Millennial contributor Anna Slatz, and was co-organized by Mark Collard, an SFU professor of anthropology, Amy Eileen Hamm, Holly Stamer, and GIDYVR. Free speech activist Lindsay Shepherd was set to moderate.
Collard, who had originally sponsored the event and assisted in booking the venue at SFU’s Harbour Centre campus, decided to withdraw his support for the event after speaking to senior director of campus public safety, Tim Marron. Marron explained that there was a high risk of violence as a result of the event.
“The senior admin had been very firm about respecting my academic freedom in terms of supporting the event,” Collard told The Post Millennial. “Tim explained what happened yesterday in a meeting between the SFU LGBT student group called Out On Campus and an outside group called Coalition Against Trans Antagonism (CATA). CATA was attempting to persuade Out On Campus to use direct action, discussing tactics such as pulling fire alarms and engaging in property damage. The ball was left in my court, and because of the safety concerns, I could not in good conscience allow this to proceed.”
There is apparently a report on the potential risks drafted by SFU security but Collard has not seen it yet—it remains with senior administration.
The Post Millennial also reached out to Meghan Murphy, who told us, “We are still going to fight this. GIDYVR is in touch with our lawyer, Jay Cameron, from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms in order to put pressure on SFU to keep our booking. Apparently, there was a meeting involving a trans activist group, and security determined that there was a viable threat of violence from this group. We do not accept that the booking is cancelled, so therefore the booking is not cancelled. We were not consulted by the university or security. We were just informed at the last minute that Mark Collard didn’t want to go through with it. We’re not going to shut down an event every time someone threatens us. Threats are par for the course. As far as we’re concerned, the event will go on.”
When asked if he had any regrets about pulling out, Collard said, “Yes, of course, I do. Civil society should have mechanisms to allow free speech to happen. What this does is incentivize the bad behaviour, since they will be more likely to do this in the future. On the other hand, I know the importance of listening to experts, and [Marron] has 19 years of security experience. He told me on a scale of one to ten, the probability of violence was an eleven.”
The event is sold out with approximately 200 attendees. If SFU does not find a way forward with this event, organizers will be forced to find a new venue that can accommodate the 200 ticket holders and can meet their security concerns all in one day.
The Post Millennial also reached out to SFU Security. This article will be updated if we hear back.
Rachel McKinnon, a biological male, won the women’s 200-meter sprint at the Masters Track Cycling World Championships for the second year in a row last weekend. While many LGBT advocates are celebrating this as a triumph, I, a lesbian healthcare professional, find myself deeply worried.
When I watch the course the contemporary transgender movement has taken, I see a movement that can’t possibly endure. And, since that movement has hitched itself aggressively to the cause of homosexuals such as myself, I fear what the backlash will mean for our hard-won liberties.
I’ve only had the right to marry for the last four years in the U.S. I remember that struggle vividly, and I don’t take for granted the freedoms won. Living in the rural American South, I’m reminded regularly of how many people remain wary or disapproving of certain legal rights for gays and lesbians. I’m also aware of how much my friends and I rely on our marriage and parental rights, and on the non-discrimination policies that allow us to be protected from violence and harassment.
Homosexuals won recognition of our civil rights because we were able to exercise our rights without requiring much participation from those outside our communities. The average person’s life changed very little when gays began to marry and live our lives more openly. We asked for inaction in the form of others not seeking to punish us for our personal lives.
These goals contrast sharply with those set by the radical gender movement. Rather than asking for basic protections, the same rights that are common to all people, the movement demands all society make extreme changes to language, personal habits, parenting, medicine, scientific practices, and more. Nothing short of total compliance through words, deeds, and policies is considered adequate. They aren’t asking people for tolerance, but for obedience.
And the consequences for disobedience are severe.
Many outspoken gender-critical women like me have been ostracized from our communities, fired from our jobs, threatened with violence, and even physically attacked. I write under a pseudonym due to my own fear for myself and my family, and my need to stay employed to support them.
I’ve never personally believed in gender ideology, this idea that “man” and “woman” are internal feelings separate from chromosomal and reproductive sex. But I supported trans people anyway because I was able to support them personally and advocate for their respectful inclusion in society without needing to submit to their doctrine. I used their pronouns to be polite, and because I could do so without implying I thought they were literally that biological sex.
But things have changed, and the message sent now is that a transgender woman is literally a biologically female who was mistakenly “assigned” the male sex at birth. As a healthcare professional, I know this to be scientifically false. But for many within the gender movement, saying “she” now equals unreserved agreement with that ubiquitous mantra, “Trans women are women.” By this logic, biological women aren’t entitled to any spaces, opportunities, or protections distinct from males who identify as women. And that is something I do not agree with and cannot affirm.
So I don’t do the pronouns anymore. For me, the demands of the movement became unsustainable, and I had to withdraw my support.
If these demands are driving away people like me, how can the transgender community hope to maintain any sort of broader public acceptance? I’m a hardcore lesbian feminist, and I used to lead teachings for healthcare workers on providing respectful care to transgender and gender-nonconforming patients. If I feel bullied by the demands being made, I can’t imagine how enraged people are who were never comfortable with this population to begin with.
The gender movement in its current form is unstable because it requires brute social and political force to maintain. It’s estimated that approximately half a percent of the U.S. population identifies as transgender. A group that deeply in the minority cannot succeed in securing their rights in the long term if that success is upheld by a public saying and doing things they don’t agree with.
The power this movement holds today is an opportunity, much like that experienced by the suffragettes in 1920 and homosexuals in 2015. It’s a chance to create reform to benefit transgender people, but those reforms will be little more than a historical blip if they can’t be maintained once power shifts. And it always shifts.
By escalating demands to a level that even progressives are finding invasive, leaders of the movement are wasting their opportunity and gambling with the hard-won rights of others. People who care about the future of not only transgender rights but also the rights of homosexuals and women need to stop and reflect on what goals are reasonable and sustainable. The protections we ask for must allow for belief systems other than our own.
Today’s radical gender movement is a movement without perspective or empathy. It disdains compromise and ignores any interests it doesn’t share. While most people, given time, will learn to tolerate policies and belief systems they don’t agree with, no group will work against its own interests indefinitely. And this is why, if nothing changes soon, the gender movement will fail.
The recent murder of Brian Wassawa, a Ugandan LGBT activist, has led to human rights groups demanding the government to conduct a thorough investigation of the murder.
Human Rights Watch reports that the 28-year-old activist was attacked in the city of Jinja while at home. He worked as a paralegal for HRAPF, an organization that provides legal aid to vulnerable communities, such as the LGBT community in Uganda.
Wasswa was found by Edward Mwebaza, executive director of HRAPF on October 4th in his home. The door to his house was opened at 5 p.m, where he was found unconscious and lying in a pool of his blood. He was rushed to a local hospital, which was unfortunately unable to treat his wounds-several blows to the head.
He was then transferred to a better-equipped hospital in Kampala, the capital of Uganda but passed away en-route. Police identified the murder weapons, a short-handled hoe and identified a potential suspect, but not much progress has been made on the investigation.
Oryem Nyeko, a researcher at HRW condemned the attack and the government’s stance “In the wake of the horrific murder of Brian Wasswa, the Ugandan government should be making it crystal clear that violence is never acceptable, regardless of one’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Instead, a government minister charged with ethics and integrity is threatening to have gay people killed at the hands of the state.”
Days after the attack, Ugandan Ethics, and Integrity Minister Simon Lokodo said the government planned to introduce a bill that would implement the death penalty for homosexual sex reports Amnesty International. Lokodo has a long history of homophobia. One notable incident saw him tweeting “Gays should stop promoting their trade. It only kills.”
Another homophobic outburst saw Lokodo publicly advocated a 2016 raid on an LGBT club where patrons were stripped and beaten by police.
The Ugandan government and its people have a history of brutal oppression of the LGBT community. The nation has criminalized homosexuality, with those caught being given life sentences, according to the BBC.
The newly proposed bill to implement the death penalty on homosexuality eerily echoes The Anti-Homosexuality Act, which was annulled in Constitutional Court in August of 2014 because the bill did not have enough lawmakers present to vote on it. Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) a non-profit NGO advocating LGBT rights says that this murder is the fourth in a string of LGBT murders in the last three months.
The Ugandan Media Centre, a government-run media organization released a statement on Twitter in response to the backlash of the new bill, stating that “the current provisions in the penal code are sufficient.” This claim has been met with skepticism by many LGBT advocates, who fear that the LGBT situation in Uganda will continue to deteriorate.