CPC Policy Convention 2023

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Nexii said:

The thing is, teens are neither adults nor kids as the right wing would like to see it so black and white.

They're kids.  We don't let them vote - we don't handle their crimes the same way, the parents have  a duty of care, they are NOT able to make adult decisions yet.

Quote

For example, the age of consent laws in Canada have evolved from this mindset, because honestly they were terrible. Not as terrible as many US states but anyways I digress. Teens get a lot of freedom that kids do not, like employment, driving a car, even getting married with parental consent.

You can quit a job, you can get out of a car, you can get a divorce.

See where this is going? Giving kids power to make mistakes and have SOME responsibility is one thing. It's  a necessary step.  But giving them the power to chemically castrate themselves permanently - THat'd be a nope.

Now - if they want to add some clause to the effect of "with 2 medical experts statement that it's necessary (as in they MUST have it)  and all parent's agreeing"  (not mom says yes dad says no)  then maybe.   And lowering the age to something like 16 from 18 is a maybe.

But please don't insult my intelligence by comparing permanently destroying body components as being the same as applying for a paper route or mcdonalds part time?

Quote

I think there will be some sort of more definitive law written where teens can get hormones at 14 or so with parental consent. Probably 16 without parental consent. It's not nearly as undoable as surgery.

Yeah, it is undoable. It permanently affects most kids - you know that so lets stop with the bullshit.

And this right there is why people cannot be trusted with this.  You're being dishonest. You know as well as i do that it leaves most kids sterile.  But ohhh - it's super easy to come back from so no biggie right? You know that's not true.

After 16 maybe  but before that - leave the kids alone unless there is hard medical evidence that they MUST - like in the cases of dual sex people where you have to make a 'choice' before puberty or the like.

There's just too many people like you out there who WANT to do this to kids and are willing to downplay how serious it is to be allowing it to happen to those who should be protected, not castrated.

[Nexii]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

They're kids.  We don't let them vote - we don't handle their crimes the same way, the parents have  a duty of care, they are NOT able to make adult decisions yet.

You can quit a job, you can get out of a car, you can get a divorce.

See where this is going? Giving kids power to make mistakes and have SOME responsibility is one thing. It's  a necessary step.  But giving them the power to chemically castrate themselves permanently - THat'd be a nope.

Now - if they want to add some clause to the effect of "with 2 medical experts statement that it's necessary (as in they MUST have it)  and all parent's agreeing"  (not mom says yes dad says no)  then maybe.   And lowering the age to something like 16 from 18 is a maybe.

But please don't insult my intelligence by comparing permanently destroying body components as being the same as applying for a paper route or mcdonalds part time?

Yeah, it is undoable. It permanently affects most kids - you know that so lets stop with the bullshit.

And this right there is why people cannot be trusted with this.  You're being dishonest. You know as well as i do that it leaves most kids sterile.  But ohhh - it's super easy to come back from so no biggie right? You know that's not true.

After 16 maybe  but before that - leave the kids alone unless there is hard medical evidence that they MUST - like in the cases of dual sex people where you have to make a 'choice' before puberty or the like.

There's just too many people like you out there who WANT to do this to kids and are willing to downplay how serious it is to be allowing it to happen to those who should be protected, not castrated.

Better analogy might be parents that have tried to deny their teens cancer treatments. Courts have already said that teens do have some agency in seriously life altering medical decisions. Which is why I think the courts will go more of a middle ground, even if the CPC goes hard into social conservative territory. I don't think that they will though, at least not Deep South USA style. We are Canada in the end. 

Re: Permanent effects I'd actually say it's poorly researched and it's not well known one way or another. I've gone through that dilemma personally. One of many things that really ought to be, and that knowledge should inform laws and policy. An awful lot of government money was spent on LGBT but unfortunately not on good to know things like this. But no, it's not like you just take a few hormones or blockers during puberty and that's all folks. You have to keep taking them for life to get the desired effects. 

 

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Nexii

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Nexii said:

Better analogy might be parents that have tried to deny their teens cancer treatments

 

 

Bullshit 

Do you need me to explain the difference to you? If you REALLY can't figure it out on your own i'll be happy to but i think we both know that comparing gender dysporia to cancer is dishonest.

1 hour ago, Nexii said:

Which is why I think the courts will go more of a middle ground, even if the CPC goes hard into social conservative territory.

There is nothing "socially conservative" about not wanting to needlessly mutilate children.

And the CPC can still pass whatever laws they like if they find the other side is being dishonest in their approach. Which has been the case so far. Doctors giving out diagnoses of 'gender dysphoria' free like candy and the courts are happy to pretend parents should have no say with thier kids. 

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-transgender-treatment

It's not even a disorder anymore and we're going to allow life altering and permanent mutilation of their bodies and their ability to reproduce instead of waiting a few years till they're adults?

Maybe instead of allowing ideologues who are willing to harm children for virtue points and woke bragging rights to mutilate children chemically, it's time for the pendulum to swing the other way and err on the side of caution.

[Nexii]

There should be more caution for sure. I have no doubt there are cases where hormones were given out too freely. 

I can say that if you're far down the transgender spectrum there is never a bit of doubt about what you are. It doesn't come from indoctrination or confusion or any of the right's tries at explaining it. Waiting until 18 for the trues doesn't do anything but cause a lot of suffering at a crucial development time. Suffering that I really wouldn't wish on anyone although feeling it for a even a day would really change opinions.

Anyways, the focus needs to be on better criteria for the process of transitioning. Separating the true trans from the rest. Going back to the past of pseudoscience isn't something either side wants. Banning it is a lazy/fearful right wing approach as much as the left's reckless carte blanche approach. But it takes some eating some crow to say we don't understand transgender all that much better today than in the past.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Nexii

[I am Groot]

14 hours ago, Nexii said:

This really is the problem when the party is over-represented in the rural West. Ironically I think they'd moderate quite a bit with more Atlantic/Quebec/Toronto representation... but that might not come to pass.

There was a poll out the other day which basically said only about 15% support the education systems' present policy on aiding transition for minors and keeping it secret from parents. 80% were against it.

In other words, this is not a rural west issue. If you think the thick belt of ethnic heavy ridings around Toronto and Vancouver are thrilled with the present enthusiasm schools and the healthcare system have for supporting and encouraging minors in their view that they're in the wrong body you haven't been in them.

Plus, according to the poll, those who support this are almost all NDP voters anyway and wouldn't vote Tory to save their lives.

So the Tories coming out with a sterner message on trans for minors is going to play well with just about everyone other than those who wouldn't dream of ever voting Tory.

Edited September 10, 2023 by I am Groot

[Nexii]

1 minute ago, I am Groot said:

There was a poll out the other day which basically said only about 15% support the education systems' present policy on aiding transition for minors and keeping it secret from parents. 80% were against it.

In other words, this is not a rural west issue. If you think the thick belt of ethnic heavy ridings around Toronto and Vancouver are thrilled with the present enthusiasm schools and the healthcare system have for supporting and encouraging minors in their view that they're in the wrong body you haven't been in them.

Plus, according to the poll, those who support this are almost all NDP voters anyway and wouldn't vote Tory to save their lives.

So the Tories coming out with a sterner message on trans for minors is going to play well with just about everyone other than those who wouldn't dream of ever voting Tory.

I'm not in the 15% on that one as the question was posed. It's not realistic to successfully transition without family help as a minor. Living as your preferred gender 30 hours a week is no solution.

At the same time minors shouldn't be outed to their parents until they are ready. It should be a cooperative approach and not assume the adversarial case.

[I am Groot]

11 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The Progressive Conservative Party, the party of Sir John A. MacDonald and John Diefenbaker, was my party federally.

That's all right. It had stopped being a conservative party by the time it died anyway.

That's WHY it died.

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

That's all right. It had stopped being a conservative party by the time it died anyway.

That's WHY it died.

Not to mention the PC's were nothing like John A's conservatives. 

And lets get real - the "conservative party" of trudeau, chretien and Mackenzie king are more his speed  

[Nexii]

The thing is support for a flawed education policy is not the same question as asking people what they think of trans minors and laws around starting transition. And that question hasn't been asked yet. 

So far the numbers just say to me that parents want to be involved in things, which is no surprise.

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, Nexii said:

The thing is support for a flawed education policy is not the same question as asking people what they think of trans minors and laws around starting transition. And that question hasn't been asked yet. 

So far the numbers just say to me that parents want to be involved in things, which is no surprise.

It's a surprise to those on the left.

I think what the cpc will support is the idea of parental rights whereby the parents MUST be involved, and that's appropriate.   Mike h - in an unusual fit of piratical common sense, suggested that it might be appropriate for the schools to have access to some species of councillor to meet with the parents on behalf of the school to help them understand what's happening with the kid and what paths forward might be available as it can be a bit of a shock.

But there has been a tendency for schools to aggressively push for kids to be considered trans and to be referred to surgeons and the like -  if they're going to do that then i say cut them out entirely.

[CdnFox]

I think the cpc is going to land on the right side of this one politically speaking

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jamie-sarkonak-pushback-against-secret-gender-transitions-was-only-a-matter-of-time

Pushback against secret gender transitions was only a matter of time

A plurality of 43 per cent believe that schools should get parental consent to begin “socially transitioning” their children with name and pronoun changes, while 35 per cent believe parents should at least be informed. In Saskatchewan, some of these parents have organized into a group called Unified Grassroots, led by Nadine Ness, a mother and former police officer.

 

 

The evidence is that this senitment is growing and parents are speaking out more about it. T

The left went too far with this, and now there's going to be blowback.  And their should be - parents SHOULD know what's going on with their kids espeically when it's a medical issue like this.

[blackbird]

14 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The Progressive Conservative Party, the party of Sir John A. MacDonald and John Diefenbaker, was my party federally. What the CPC is is the old social credit party. According to Preston Manning, it was the party of Lincoln. 

Setting that aside, reading the results of the voting on the resolutions, while I oppose the resolutions on the transgender issue, on the whole the results were better than I had hoped. The resolution on transgender issues will no doubt be tested in Court if they are ever implemented. My MP just inched closer to winning my vote. I sent him an email to that effect and I am sure he is breathing easier knowing that.

Since you oppose the resolutions on the transgender issue, I assume you believe transgenderism to be a normal or legitimate human thing.  The ideas being taught to young people in schools that it is normal and that a kid can choose to change his gender is pure madness.  It is very harmful to people.  I don't understand why anyone would support that kind of thing.  The bottom line on the Christian view is " We do not have an inalienable right to do whatever we want with our physical selves. We belong to God and should glorify him with our bodies (1 Cor. 6:19-20)."   Freedom of choice is not applicable in such matters.  From a biblical point of view, there is not such thing as a right to do anything one imagines or wishes in the world.  That might be liberalism, but it is not in accordance with God's design of mankind and the world.  If liberalism is your god, then I can see why you would support it.

  The Progressive Conservative Party which united with the Canadian Alliance Party around 2003 leaned more to being a liberal party.  That party would not give much of an alternative for Canadian voters.  Anyway, the majority of conservatives decided twenty years ago, that having two conservative parties in Parliament would make it next to impossible to ever form government.  So it was a wise decision to form a new conservative party out of the two.  

The Biblical view of transgenderism is as follows:

"

In short, the Bible teaches that God made us male or female, and no matter our own feelings or confusion, we should act in accordance with the biological reality of God’s good design. Transgenderism falls short of the glory of God and is not the way to walk in obedience to Christ.

There are three big Scriptural building blocks that lead one inexorably to this conclusion.

1. Gender Binary

The Bible knows no other gender categories besides male and female. While men and women in Scripture may express their masculinity and femininity in a wonderful diversity of ways, Scripture still operates with the binary categories of men and women. You are one or the other. The anomaly of intersex individuals does not undermine the creational design, but rather gives another example of creational “groaning” and the “not the way they are supposed to be” realities of a fallen world. Likewise, the eunuchs in Matthew 19 do not refer to sexless persons, but to men who were born without the ability to procreate or who were castrated, likely for a royal court (for more on the challenge of intersex, and the question of eunuchs, see Denny Burk, What Is the Meaning of Sex?, 169-183).

The biblical understanding of male and female is more than just an assumption writ large on the pages of Scripture. We know from Genesis 1 and 2 that the categories of male and female are a part of God’s design for humanity. Indeed, when God created the first human pair in his image, he created them male and female (Gen. 1:27). He made the woman to be a complement and help to the man (Gen. 2:18-22). Far from being a mere cultural construct, God depicts the existence of a man and a woman as essential to his creational plan. The two are neither identical nor interchangeable. But when the woman, who was taken out of man, joins again with the man in sexual union, the two become one flesh (Gen. 1:23-24). Dividing the human race into two genders, male and female—one or the other, not both, and not one then the other—is not the invention of Victorian prudes or patriarchal oafs. It was God’s idea.

2. Gender Identity

Someone with respect for Scripture may say at this point, “I agree that God makes as either male or female. But you are confusing biological sex with gender. I know transgender Christians who desire to embrace God’s design for men and women, but they also believe that who God created them to be does not correspond with the sex assigned to them at birth.” I don’t doubt that there are persons like this out there (and in our churches). While some people embracing a transgender identity may do so on a lark, many strongly feel that only by living as the opposite sex can they full embrace their true self.

The question is not whether such persons and feelings exist. The question is whether the is of our emotional or mental state equals the ought of God’s design. Most Christians reject this thinking in a host of other areas, from eating disorders to unbiblical divorces. We understand that following Christ means dying to ourselves (Matt. 16:24), being renewed in our minds (Rom. 12:2), and no longer walking as we once did (Eph. 4:17-18). Being “true to ourselves” is always a false choice when it means going against God’s Word.

As much as contemporary academia says otherwise, the Bible believes in the organic unity of biological sex and gender identity. This is why male and female are (uniquely) the type of pair that can reproduce (Gen. 1:28; 2:20). It’s why homosexuality—a man lying with a man as with a woman (Lev. 18:22)—is wrong. It’s why the apostle Paul can speak of homosexual partnerships as deviating from the natural relations or natural function of male-female sexual intercourse (Rom. 1:26-27). In each instance, the argument only works if there is an assumed equivalence between the biology of sexual difference and the corresponding identities of male and female.

3. Gender Confusion

The third building block follows naturally from the other two. If the binary of male and female is God’s idea, and if we are meant to embrace, by divine design, our biological and creational difference as men and women, then it stands to reason that the confusion of these realities would be displeasing to God. And so we see clearly in the Bible that men should not act sexually as women (Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-10), that men should not dress like women (Deut. 22:5), and that when men and women embrace obviously other-gendered expressions of identity it is a disgrace (1 Cor. 11:14-15). We do not have an inalienable right to do whatever we want with our physical selves. We belong to God and should glorify him with our bodies (1 Cor. 6:19-20).

I have not begun to answer all the important questions about pastoral care, counsel, and compassion for the hurting and confused. But with the cultural winds gusting as they are, we cannot assume that Christians—even those in good churches—know what to think about gender or why to think it. Hopefully this brief post, and these three building blocks, can help us ensure the right foundation is in place. After all, the goal is not to build a wall to keep people out, but that God might build up his church in truth and grace that we can welcome people in, calling his image bearers to embrace the life that is truly life (1 Tim. 6:19)."

What Does the Bible Say About Transgenderism? (thegospelcoalition.org)

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 

The bottom line on the Christian view is ...

You waste space because anybody who would be convinced by a religious argument has already made up their minds.  Luckily the cut& paste didn't take any effort.

[Queenmandy85]

42 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Since you oppose the resolutions on the transgender issue, I assume you believe transgenderism to be a normal or legitimate human thing.  The ideas being taught to young people in schools that it is normal and that a kid can choose to change his gender is pure madness.  It is very harmful to people.  I don't understand why anyone would support that kind of thing.  The bottom line on the Christian view is " We do not have an inalienable right to do whatever we want with our physical selves. We belong to God and should glorify him with our bodies (1 Cor. 6:19-20)."   Freedom of choice is not applicable in such matters.  From a biblical point of view, there is not such thing as a right to do anything one imagines or wishes in the world.  That might be liberalism, but it is not in accordance with God's design of mankind and the world.  If liberalism is your god, then I can see why you would support it.

Your assumption is correct. Transgenderism is a normal, if rare, legitamate human thing. Your view that a kid chooses is incorrect. God made that choice for her. If a child is born with a disfigurement, such as a cleft palate, that can be corrected with surgery, would that corrective surgery violate Christian teachings? When your daughter is born with a male personality, trapped in a female body, and surgery can correct that, do you not believe the compassionate Christ would support that? After all, that is the primary lesson of Christianity, love and compassion. 

Be totally clear; while I disagree with you on this issue, I respect your devotion. It is just that I was not only married to a theologian (M Div.), but in my own career, I developed a close friendship with  several people who were transgender. 

 

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Your assumption is correct. Transgenderism is a normal, if rare, legitamate human thing.

It is a disorder.  Sure, it's not a choice - but neither is cancer. That doesnt' mean we should treat cancer as a rare but normal part of life.  We still wipe the cancer out.

We don't have the drugs to do that here and i get that they get some relief from pretending to be members of the opposite sex  - in short lying to themselves and asking others around them to lie.  And fair enough - if it helps them get by i'm generally ok with a little lying.

But - mutilating children is out.  ACTUALLY treating men as  if they were biological women in all things is out.  Having parents being kept in the dark about their kids health is out.

There is nothing 'natural ' about it.   It's a disorder.  Gays are natural - they can function fully and be a happy healthy part of society all on their own with no treatment or anything else from society. 

But transgender people mostly cannot. IT's an illness that deserves sympathy and requires treatment - but it's not a 'normal state of being' any more than having a broken spine is.

[Queenmandy85]

51 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

but it's not a 'normal state of being' any more than having a broken spine is.

Or a cleft palate? Why is it okay to use surgery to address a cleft palate but not matching the body to the gender of the mind? 

This is ranging far from the CPC convention topic. 

Did anyone notice if any of the resolution on National Defence were voted on?

I did notice the resolution the defund the CBC was defeated.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Queenmandy85

[blackbird]

58 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

It is just that I was not only married to a theologian (M Div.), but in my own career, I developed a close friendship with  several people who were transgender. 

Neither of those points prove it is a normal or proper way of human life.  

Being married to a theologian proves nothing about the trans issue.   

Actually there are many women ministers in some churches but they completely disregard the Bible's teaching that woman are not to teach or be authorities over men in the church.  Do you know there was even a lesbian on the NIV bible translation committee?  Today you don't have to look hard to find apostasy and false teaching in churches.  It is rampant.  According to the Bible women ministers is not biblical.  I think it is in 1st or 2nd Timothy.  You can look it up.

I gave you a detailed biblical perspective.  I don't know if you even bothered to read it.  

Of course having a close friendship proves nothing either.  Except it is wise and proper to be understanding and compassionate with these people.  Christians are called to love thy neighbour.   

I would question whether a person is born that way.  There are likely other social factors that came into play that turned the person in that direction.  But to allow schools to foster the idea that a kid can choose to change their gender is extremely harmful.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I was not only married to a theologian (M Div.), but in my own career, I developed a close friendship with  several people who were transgender. 

^^This guy knows how to party! ??

[Army Guy]

22 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

So you really have no idea…. it just feels like something real to you, but you can’t actually name it?   That’s conspiracy nonsense. 

Look i get it, mom does not allow you on the intra net, but a 10 second look and dozens of LGBTQ lobby groups came up, not sure why that is so hard for you...but then again everything is a conspiracy to you....

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Or a cleft palate? Why is it okay to use surgery to address a cleft palate but not matching the body to the gender of the mind? 

When you fix a cleft pallete - you fix the problem.

When you medically alter someone's appearance, you're not fixing the problem at all.  And there is no way currently to match a person's body to it's gender -  a male is  a male if you cut his penis off or not - and a woman is a woman even if you lop off her breasts.

So what you're talking about is mutilating healthy organs for vainty purposes.  That doesn't make it completely off the table but it's very clearly not the same thing.

And the fact i'd have to explain that suggests you're not being very honest about how much time you've spent around trans people talking  about these issues.  Imagine comparing a mental health issue like gender disphoria to a cleft palate.

[Guest]

On 9/8/2023 at 11:50 PM, TreeBeard said:

Who?  What’s the lobby group called?  Where are they active?

Lobbying is mostly done behind the scenes, by investment firms like Blackrock, which has the finances to put immense pressure on firms to put out positive inclusivity numbers, many of which turned this to jumping on the LGBTQ bandwagon for easy points.

The more firms you can pressure, the more pressure mounts on more firms to join up.

Its hollow, as proven by Bud Light, who hit and miss in their attempt at inclusive talk.

Lobby groups in the west are heavily funded, and hold enough power in some, to pressure directly to the government.

[Army Guy]

22 hours ago, herbie said:

Don't need one these guys will make one up in their heads to condemn. Like FFS not even a full page of discussion and they devolve into tranny discussions like that should be the main event at the CPC convention.
Start their own party PCP the Paleo Conservative Party....

So far lots of Trudeau bashing and vague policies with no detail on how they'd be achieved. Added Sweep It Under The Rug (carbon capture) to Axe The Tax to complete their Climate policy.

Well it was a topic of discussion during the convention, and it might even be a part of the party policy no decision has been made yet...hence why it is being discussed here...

As for the Justin bashing, well he does make an easy target, he is either on the wrong side of every issue, or decides to do nothing....so ya I'm sure his name came up a few times , and I'm only guessing here but none of it was any good...Although i did enjoy climate change boy get burned by the media...the liberal media on top of that...

Thats what people do when a entire climate change policy does NOTHING to combat climate change...you sweep it under the rug, and start over....But hey once the conservatives get elected you can donate your climate change taxes to me if you want if it will make you feel like you participating in the climate change crises, it would accomplish the same thing...

[Moonlight Graham]

18 hours ago, eyeball said:

Why do you people always make it sound like the PMO and the CBC editorial room are one and the same thing? It's complete bullshit.

I think you really need to provide some kind of smoking gun here.  Email trails, documents, recordings of insiders discussing their collusion.  The old bias conspiracy shtick usually trotted out just doesn't cut it.

I never said there's collusion so no need to address a strawman.

My comment that virtually 100% of progressives deny CBC has an ideological/political bias also applies to your comments.  I have been proven right, thank you.

[eyeball]

21 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I never said there's collusion so no need to address a strawman

Then why get rid of publicly funded broadcasters? Virtually every country on the planet has one.

21 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

My comment that virtually 100% of progressives deny CBC has an ideological/political bias also applies to your comments.  I have been proven right, thank you.

Yes but to listen to you folks put it, the CBC never says anything negative about left wing governments in Canada which simply isn't true, at all.

Edited September 10, 2023 by eyeball

[Nexii]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's a surprise to those on the left.

I think what the cpc will support is the idea of parental rights whereby the parents MUST be involved, and that's appropriate.   Mike h - in an unusual fit of piratical common sense, suggested that it might be appropriate for the schools to have access to some species of councillor to meet with the parents on behalf of the school to help them understand what's happening with the kid and what paths forward might be available as it can be a bit of a shock.

But there has been a tendency for schools to aggressively push for kids to be considered trans and to be referred to surgeons and the like -  if they're going to do that then i say cut them out entirely.

Yea it is weird to me to hear this to be honest. In times past, school would have been the least safe place to transition and last place I would come out. I can't imagine that's actually changed in most places?  

Either way the dual life thing is super harmful. Even worse than hiding your true self from your parents. Julia Malott went into this on NP. 

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/julia-malott-the-real-danger-to-trans-kids-is-to-confuse-involving-parents-with-outing