Statement wise “I don’t want the government to tell me what to eat” or variations could mean basically anything. Most of the time it’s posturing on behalf of the idea that a lack of government regulation is a good thing which ignores a rather bloody history of food suppliers adulterating food with harmful substances in the name of preservation / cheapening production cost or using production practices that cause the likelihood of contamination of food.

Once you scratch the surface of the argument you can usually figure out more exactly what they mean and it often isn’t things like government subsidy programs publishing food pyramids based on shady science and economics rather than in the interest of health.

Often it’s based out of perceived personal inconvenience or the appearance of moral judgement such as when there’s some sort of health labelling initiative.

In Canada there are a lot of things that are not considered legal additives for food that are used in the US and the difference in strictness is in part because the Health care system in Canada is funded publicly. Producers of foodstuffs cost the government money directly if whatever they put in it has no nutritional value and causes known health problems. Rather than let companies create messes and tragedies which the government is on the hook to clean up when people’s health fails they remove the issue at it’s source. In the US there’s less incentive as these costs become scattered in the form of individual medical bills and oftentimes the savings are from food being shelf stable for longer. Shrugging one’s shoulders at the fallout or claiming its an exercise of “freedom” is in service to those who make money hand over fist.

Hey, Non-binary trans masc person in trades here.

I can tell you how I perceive different types of co-worker if it helps you want to dial in what it’s like on the other side of the experience. There’s layers to the whole situation and as non-binary folks we understand what we are asking for isn’t automatically going to click and requires people to figure us out.

First up : Most of us end of day aren’t going to rock the boat for anything less than fully agregious behaviour so calls to report other people for being mildly offensive are probably not actually going to go anywhere. Most of us are scared of being labelled “a problem” so we just take the hits when they come. If you are a boss and notice a non-binary person sticking closer to specific people and avoiding others there’s a good chance that they’ve found the people who are safe and avoiding ones who aren’t. A great accommodation that can invisibly help is just to recognize this strata and if a task nessesitates putting people together try and pair along these lines. A lot of co-workers wait until other people aren’t around to let their nastier behaviour shine.

Now to co-worker types. Aside from the full on transphobe or problem persons there’s a range of different stages of cool people.

The “I don’t really get it” Co-worker pays lip service to the polite aspects of using pronouns. They are the type to introduce you to others by misgendering you and then flap their hands and go “Oh no sorry ‘they’”. We know they don’t get it or don’t really care. The misgendering still hurts but they are fairly benign. They make these accidents non maliciously and are afforded grace. If they step in it we basically disregard because they aren’t really worth the effort of getting too comfortable around. We make these accommodations for strangers daily. Annoying but nessisary.

The “in training” co-worker is one whom is encountering their very first trans person. They want you to be their Obi wan and their enthusiasm is a bit of a double edged sword at times. It’s tiring to teach people to dance when they keep stepping on your feet but the job needs doing. Some of us veiw this as our own brand of service to the cause of normalizing ourselves more widely. Some of us just don’t want to be bothered. Either way, just wanting to learn is heaps better than ambivalence. If you fuck up something, don’t make a big deal about it. It’s not that you’re a terrible person and should have known better. Our stuff takes practice and we know it’s not intuitive.

The “A little too up in our shit” co-worker is excited to know the real you but looks at you as a beautiful creature in need of preservation. They might seek to advocate on your behalf or behind your back but the attempt is clumsy and often at odds with a non-binary person’s desire to just get through the workday as a regular human and not make waves. Good enthusiasm sure, we’re probably friends but for the love of God we’re adults and we can sort out our own shit if need be.

The “Understands the Assignment” co-worker is just comfortable to be around. They don’t have to be the most tuned in to all the nuance about our specific needs in ways we require more out of partners, family and friends but they treat our basic requirements as no big deal, maybe they occasionally ask questions to check in if they catch us struggling or reacting but aren’t going to narc to the boss on our behalf. They either avoid all stereotypes associated with sex or in the case of trans mascs/trans femmes they treat us like one of the boys/girls. Gold standard.

Hey, enby here. While I definitely benefit from they being a default I have enough binary trans friends who have this experience. What the person you are replying to is giving you is something referred to as nuance. A solve put forward by a well meaning cis person doesn’t automatically work just because it seems like it should to you. Sometimes it causes new problems and when someone tells you about them it’s a good idea to not assume it’s them trying to be a dick or difficult about something but actually explaining why that solve isn’t always a good thing.

If your intention is to make a trans person actually comfortable instead of getting defensive then listening when these things come up instead of telling them they are trying to be trouble on purpose is the play.

Not everything works for every trans person and inside the trans community there is something sometimes referred to as “the coward’s they”. It’s a well known phenomenon where a physical transition gets to a certain point the brain stops easily registering and sorting someone as being their birth sex because they seemlessly look and act as their gender so the automatic neurological system of assigning them a sex value flips fully to the new and desired setting. You see it on conservative media sometimes where they slip up and use the actual correct pronouns and have to correct themselves back over to using the wrong pronouns… Problem being is it causes the same mental redirect issues for a Conservative actively dodging the automatic reaction as learning to use Non-binary pronouns so as a compromise these people use “they” instead because it is easier to trick the sorter and strand themselves in the safe neutral ground where they can identify a person as “not actually a woman/man” without triggering their audience by using correct pronouns for a trans person.

When you use they/them pronouns for a binary trans person it’s interpreted by the brain of the trans person as you seeing and reacting to all the aspects of their body that makes them visibly trans and your brain’s automatic sex recognition system sorting them into this “not enough” category. It’s effectively less hurtful than full misgendering… But it still pings the bit of the brain that is seeing their own body through your perception via your words. It causes they same dysphoric reaction where their mind picks over all the parts of their body that would cause you to react by misgendering or degendering them. The whole point of preferred pronouns is to help us stop that mental reaction from happening as much.

It is perfectly safe to use they/them pronouns for cis people who do not have dysphoric reactions at all and for non-binary people who actively use those pronouns but if someone rocks up looking like they are trying to project a full binary situation it’s worth going for the full binary pronoun option because they are specifically putting in the work to be as obvious as possible so that people know that’s what they want.

Women who are like that usually change their mind after a couple of years buckled into the yoke. There’s currently a whole group of women stuck in golden handcuffs in the trad wife influencer community who are miserable in their relationships but making too much ad money to consider stopping.

Absolutely. I belong to a non cheating group. It’s just seems completely unfathomable that it could happen. Most of us are in 15+ year relationships and are friends with everyone. It’s not just a “the women are friends with the women, the men are friends with the men” situation. We got a blend of genders all participating in the same hobbies. There would be so much social cost to cheating it would be kind of insane.

Where I work though there’s a decent amount of drama in that regard though and I have noticed that one common factor is that the relationships are atomized. They either keep their old friends going in and there’s almost zero expectation of their partners integrating into each other’s friendships or there’s just this expectation that men and women are fundamentally different creatures. That whole men are from Mars women from Venus shtick. From the outside it seems like emotional distance where people look at each other like they aren’t targets of empathy - more like they play by a book as if they can just put the right inputs in they will get the desired outputs.

I know this is entirely anedotal and that anybody could theoretically cheat for any number of reasons… It’s just something that I noticed about the groups of cheats that I am aware of.

Probably not vaccinated for e coli. There’s very few options and most only work very short term. This smacks of reckless child endangerment.

I mean Cholera is kind of not the issue here. This creek has habitually tested high for e coli. An e coli infection makes cholera seem tame. You treat cholera it’s got a mortality rate of less than 1%… E coli infection has a mortality rate around 17% slightly less than one in five people who get hit die from renal failure. Those odds go up significantly for kids…

This idiot brought his grandkids to splash in this e coli laced stream. I am without words.

Very individualized as per need. Non-binary is an umbrella term for a whole bunch of different situations so what feels right is going to be very different for someone who feels like say a mix of masculine and feminine versus someone who has dysphoric reactions to any and all gender markers. It’s going to be different for someone whose identity is more static than say someone who fluidly bounces between extremes.

If you know someone who is non-binary that’s essentially just the tip of the iceberg of a whole discussion about how they personally interact with their body or the culture of gender. A lot of people seem to treat it as a full stop third category which can actually be a disservice to a non-binary person because it oftentimes just leads to a lot of new assumptions and frames out some of the ways they could be better treated than just as automatically genderless. I’ve heard of mixes of Mom/Dad for bigender people, just Mom or Dad for trans masc/femme folk, Completely new words that do not have cultural baggage, or just “my parent”. It’s not a one size fits all situation.

I’ve heard “Mawpaw” for a bigender person before which sounds kind of delightfully southern.

People are going to feel what they feel. As a trans person I recognize that this isn’t for me. It’s a call to action to get cis people to step up and perform heroics. It’s a saviour trope with all the baggage attached.

It’s not a bad message but it also isn’t flattering to be depicted as the battered rat barely standing. It’s art. Art is going to strike you differently depending on where you stand. Both takes are valid because it’s subjective but the real pernicious bit here is somebody from a group featured in that art is telling people here how that art makes them feel and the immediate reaction is to tell them they are wrong to feel that way. That isn’t kind. It’s not empathetic. It is demanding unconditional gratitude from someone you feel owes it without reservation of quality of help recieved.

Sadly it’s true right now we as a community don’t really have the luxury of picking between good and bad allyship, we need all we can get… But it’s still kinda a shitty.

I dunno about that. This status quo was created because America came out of WWII smelling like roses. All of Europe was rebuilding and so American prosperity of the time was basically like being the one only slightly scorched house on a bombed block. It’s been long enough that the countries in question aren’t in need of leaning on the one stable currency.

This could be the push needed to equalize the world stage and break off of old habits. Like take Canada for example. Food self sufficiency in Canada was always a concern. That’s why there was a tarriff on US Dairy, because Canada wanted to retain domestic self sufficiency in one of it’s food production spheres. That issue persisted through other sectors but there wasn’t a strong political motive to make that shift. The government wasn’t called to protect and incentivize strong domestic production to a great extent because the US generally has a better growing year in the south. To not have food security however is a weakness in Canadian’s self determination if things go bad. Now that things have gone bad structure will be put in place and protected meaning a semi-permanent loss of market for American interests.

What Trump has proven is American volitillity in it’s government structure and voting block and nobody will want to tie a shoddy investment around their ankles. In fact some might take it as the opportunity to cut loose a problematic ally.

It’s not nessisarily skewing the narrative, it’s just not providing context. Terrorist acts have a narrow definition in Canadian law. This guy could be a spree killer motivated by racism but unless that killing is for premeditated ideological, religious or political reasons to coerce a specific result or change of policy from the population / Government it doesn’t fall under the definition.

No manifesto or claim of reasoning or connections found to groups that claim responsibility - no terrorist designation.

A terrorist attack has a narrow definition in Canadian law where it is specifically part of a premeditated ideological, religious or political attempt to influence government policy or to intimidate a section of the public to a specific end. Basically if this guy didn’t have a manifesto or ever stated his reason within this rubric and was not part of a group that has specific aims then it follows under a regular old spree killer homicide unless it was racially motivated in which case it is also a hate crime.

Whether one uses cars or guns is not a factor in determining what counts as a terrorist act. The reporting on this has not been great ar clearing up this point.

There’s a very specific rubric for what counts as a terrorist attack in Canada. Probably the level of calculation and premeditation involved was a factor and that he’s not a part of an ideologically organized group that is trying to influence behaviour of a government or political body.

A spontaneous hate crime made against a population is technically not a terrorist attack by Canadian definition. To count you have to have done it for a narrow slice of very specific reasons.

Removed by mod

We know we aren’t flashy. The world kind of forgets about us sometimes because we are next to the loudest kid in the class. We are proud generally of the co-operation we have with other places and groups. Our medical advances raise waters that lift all ships , we have a space program that primarily assists other nations space exploration. We have a military but we are primarily devoted to UN peacekeeping.

The Canadians were a pivotal force tasked with the Italian Campaign in WWII which had some of the most brutal on the ground city fighting of the war. My Grandfather was there from the beginning to the end of the Campaign… Yet I have heard Americans on here ask “Did Canada storm the beaches of Normandy?” as some kind of “gotcha” to shame us because they don’t know that we had our own beach operation but all they know is that Americans were there because Hollywood only shows American battles.

We are used to being kind of forgotten but we can be proud of ourselves for a job well done.

Removed by mod

A complete absence of funding isn’t the same as saying it isn’t an issue. At a government level there’s always more problems than money and manpower to solve them. Approaching it from that perspective is not a particularly healthy way to approach these situations. Realistically when you look at the the two cohorts you see very different behaviours. Funding for all shelters is currently massively declining across the board in Canada and no one pilots a new program when existing ones are failing.

Think of it like this. If you do not fear for your life but are escaping from an abusive relationship with child in tow what sounds like a better option : seeking help by going to a friend’s or relative’s place where there’s familiarity and seeking help from an authority for assistance OR going blindly into a shelter system with a lot of unknowns? While it’s true that men do need support seeking help from a formal shelter system is not a popular option.

The reason why women don’t tend to rely on their existing support systems is because it’s the first place abusive partners stalk if they intend a violent attack, not just an abusive encounter but an actual physical assult that puts other family members and friends lives at risk.

Hotel voucher programs and reserved open spots in pre-existing shelter systems do a similar solve to contemporary shelter programs but the reason mens shelters close isn’t always funding related. In part it’s because men don’t often choose that route because a restraining order is usually more than enough to deter a female abuser and it is more comfortable relying on people you know. In the cases of DV homicide women are way more likely to be killed if they leave, men tend to be killed if they stay. It’s not a matter of just dry DV stats. It’s in the nitty gritty details of how these scenarios play out by gender divide that cause these initiatives to fail… which means it needs dedicated grassroots support which by and large isn’t happening not because people won’t donate but because while straight men love to complain that there’s no mens shelters they are not coordinating dedicating their free time to make it happen. Queer specific initiatives are generally more successful because the organization structures are dedicated and they often do not rely on government but community support. What straight guys need to imbibe is you do not need a government stamp to start stuff.

I am not arguing for Gender specifc shelters what I am saying is that it’s not a matter of how many reports of DV, the motivating factor in funding is how often each statistical group end in a homicide. It’s a stumbling block which means that the priority often overshadows services for men that do exist when doing a casual search even online.

The main needs of men escaping DV are mental health support and police assisted extraction, temporary housing and childcare assistance. The first two are decently prioritized depending on Province. Here in BC there’s decent resources directly through Coastal Health and less great coverage the Fraser Health Authority but childcare assistance is across the board spotty and really 99. 9% of the time the elements of making someone physically untraceable are not nessisary if the offender is a woman which means that if we were to look into hotel voucher programs and relocation services instead of permanent brick and mortar shelters for those cases you could likely provide options that fill the requirements for communities in smaller towns with a quarter of the funding of a shelter. Straight men generally do not have to skip town so they can often rely on their previously made support structures more so the time spent in temporary housing is often stays of less than a week.

What a lot of advocates in the space keep pushing for is a replication of the system because of the idea that it’s not fair to give men a “lesser service” but the needs of the cohort are completely different and we should structure care to fit the needs based on an evidence based model instead of pointing to something else that is designed for a group with completly different needs.

That is a space that is more generally lacking. A lot of spaces prioritize women in part because there’s a real issue with abusive men hunting down and killing their partners when they try to leave so women require a spy-like bugout infrastructure to safely leave. Historically this trend motivated womens groups and queer centric undergrounds to go above and beyond and was reinforced later by government grant because establishing support while victims are still alive is cheaper than the apparatus of investigation for their murder. It’s a balance sheet game.

This hunting behaviour is something highly statistically unlikely for women to do which tends to mean support for straight men could look a lot different and be effective but also the monetary government incentive to provide it is not as lucrative for governments who are always triaging spending in sectors that don’t somehow save them money.

It’s absolutely correct that these resources should exist but it is going to take a much greater grassroots effort to maintain and structurally speaking expecting it to look exactly like the model in place for women is probably in part the enemy of progress because those models are prohibitively expensive.