Canadian PM Mark Carney's child attended Tavistock

Nobody is quite as provocative as Trump, though. His whole approach is to provoke......no element of diplomacy at all...so naturally gets people's back up.

Me too! I dressed as a boy aged about 8 or 9 and definitely wanted to be one. Boys’ stuff was so much more interesting. My parents let me get on with it. It was the 70s thank god, not the 2020s so I wasn’t encouraged to cut my breasts off and take T.
Puberty sorted all that out. Soon wearing make up, styling my hair, dating boys and these days married (to a man as it happens) with two kids.

Back to Carney - I think having trans offspring is relevant as it may inform his outlook (like Ed Balls for example). Sasha is an out and proud trans right activist it seems. Canada is clearly having a problem balancing women’s and trans rights and in protecting young gender questioning kids. These are important issues, I think it’s fair to ask Carney for his approach.

Biden was provocative. Trudeau was provocative. Carney is provocative. People don't have to act like toddlers and whine as much about good policies as bad ones. Knee-jerk political tribalism is silly*.

*I think all politicians are rubbish tbf

Yes, it's young children where I would hesitate to mention it, even if I suspect the parent's judgment is being biased.

Adult children are a whole other thing. I could never get over how the media tiptoed around Hunter Biden's antics as if he was a wayward teenager, not a man in his fifties.

Totally. Anne was wet and girly. I honestly think I would have fallen for all tje transport stuff if it had been around in the 70s.
Turns out, I was just a tomboy.

Sasha Carney graduated from Yale University, and now works as a reviewer in Brooklyn.
I do agree that children when they are young should not be dragged into politics but as she has graduated from University and is working independently now I think that comment should be allowed.
It shows the bias in direction that Carney may take in his policy towards trans rights/women's rights. That is a fair question to ask and it might lead to him being questioned about it by reporters which would be a good thing.

If Carney starts using his children for political gain then that will be different but, until then, I think politicians are entitled to a family life. I'm more interested in if / how / why he's been parachuted in like this. Or maybe I've just not been paying attention - sorry Canada - but I wasn't even aware he'd gone into politics and now he's PM?

And yes, why do I get the feeling I'm going to be called a Trump supporter for asking?

Canada is a country where a nurse has just been found guilty of professional misconduct for supporting women’s rights and making statements of biological reality. In the judgment against her, it was declared that claiming sex is binary is unacceptable. It’s persecution based on a falsehood. It’s a witch hunt. It’s not unreasonable to look at the beliefs and actions of the country’s leader to see if he is going to show any indication that he intends to put a stop to such nonsense, or line up with a lit torch to help get the flames going.

But becauase Trump is so provocative in his approach he necessarily contellates opposition - so it could well be that even useful policies get thrown out or opposed just because it's him implementing them.

I agree.....that is one of the big impacts of Trumpism.....to provoke others to act in the opposite direction of whatever he's saying or doing. It's juvenile rebellion stuff, but happens nonetheless.

The view that we shouldn't ever criticise politicians who are on "our side" because it might damage some greater cause is exactly the sort of attitude that got Trump into power.

He's the prime minister of Canada. To what extent will that support affect how he does his job and his responsibilities towards the wider population? We've seen it with MPs here eg Lisa Nandy and her obsession with a single trans-identified constituent that led her down the path of publicly stating she would put male rapists in women's prisons.

Bigotry, vitriol, hatefulness... on another thread it was 'toxic debate' and 'frothing at the mouth' .

These seem to be free-floating concepts that hover over FWR discussions, and regardless of what is actually said, no matter how polite or constructive or factually correct or well researched it is, ' bigotry, vitriol, hatefulness, toxicity' are going to swoop down randomly with unsupported accusations.

Anybody thinking of using predictable words like that in such a random and unfocused way need to know that overuse blunts effectiveness.

If you don't mind that, and just want to keep saying words like bigotry, vitriol, hatefulness, toxicity, fine, go ahead, free speech and all that. But they are so overused, with so little rational justification, that they don't have the effect that I think posters who use them think they have.

If his daughter had been suffering from anorexia who he have supported her in her believe she was fat, even though, as anyone could have seen, she was nothing more than skin and bone, I wonder.

What’s the alternative if they’re certain?
Turn your back on them?
No, won’t ever do that.

After discussion, yes.

should a Father support a child if they wish to remove their breasts or penis? really? REALLY?

Alltheprettyseahorses

Does this apply to leaders (general) you're not ideologically teamed with too? If Carney is under what are arguably harmful influences it shouldn't be hidden.

Harmful influences? Seriously?
It’s a father supporting his child.
As he should.

Pathetic.

The NDP (who in some ways occupy a similar space to the LibDems as a third party, though they are a little bigger) and the Greens are both as captured as the minor left parties in the UK. I'm not sure about Le Bloc, I suspect they would like to keep out of it.

The Conservatives are very mixed as a group. Their leader, Pierre Poilievre, is often painted in the media as a far right reactionary, but he's actually extremely middle of the road on most social issues and has generally been supportive of things like same sex marriage, and I think he was actually really late to the game in terms of making a statement about gender ideology. I do think now he has, and gets it.

On the other hand, I think he has deliberately avoided bringing it up as an election issue. The fact is that it can only cause him problems and lose him votes, it's really a no win scenario if it becomes an election discussion. I don't have a lot of certainly he'd do anything overt about it even if he won, if he thought it would be unpopular. But I don't think he'd support it either, and he'd probably allow things which would ultimately undermine it.

In the same way politicians should declare their financial conflicts of interest, they should also declare their social and cultural interests when running for office or voting on legislation.

Replacing sex with gender was never part of Trudeau's/Liberal's election platform yet they did it anyway. Carney, who has not faced the electorate in a byelection or general election, leads the country and will set the legislative agenda. He has been described as a very smart man with very poor judgment (eg friends with Ghislaine Maxwell). Transgender ideology is resulting in the mutilation of children. If a politician is carrying water for a trans child, the public has a right to know.

You need to define "hateful" in this context. What some people would call hateful, others would see as simple fact. Merely mentioning the immutability of biological sex is categorised as hateful by some.

Yep.

Sup?

Riiiight. Clever. 👍

Sure, but no one needs to be hateful. That's a choice.