DrivebyHaiku

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.

But there are a lot of things that exist that aren't exactly friendly. People often hinge their belief or disbelief in any divinity singularly on the bible. They consider proof of God existing is based on whether all the claims made in an old book are true - not that it is a fallible piece. It either has to be all true or all false which is not how any scientific text more than a decade out of date has proven.

Not saying that means anyone should start praying. The God as listed in the Bible given their behaviour does not seem either omniscient, omnipotent or benevolent but those ideals have shaped a lot of the discussion about whether something classifies as a "true" God or not. A lot of thought and debate goes towards squaring that circle. Sometimes the easiest answer is that lies exist. The presense of other gods are noted in the bible. Maybe that one was just a super powered Narcissist.

Actually more complicated than that. Sex is broken up into a bunch of factors. Phenotype is the word used to mean the grouping of characteristics we associate with either male or female. So that roughly covers genitals, secondary characteristics (boobs, body hair, build differences etc)... But it's actually wild.

• Chromasomal sex - On it's own means very little. If you have say an XY chromasome but for the sake of example an androgen insensitivity you develop as (phenotypically) female in the womb.

• Horomonal Sex - Is the mix of horomones that impact development. Whether you develop to appear male or female starts in the early stages of development in rhe womb and then kicks into high gear as puberty and can change unexpectedly. This means for example that there's people who were born appearing entirely female and yet naturally develop along male lines later and vice versa.

• Internal reproductive Anatomy - This one gets crazy where individuals don't always have internal organs that match their chromosomes. You can have opposite, none, both.

The precursor of trans medicine involved a lot of case studies seeing how naturally occuring variation in biological sex worked and the more it was studied the more scientists began to panic because they realized that the model of sorting into two strict sexes was flawed. There's a lot of people out there who live practically their entire lives only to realize at the doctor's office that they have surprise characteristics quietly existing hidden just below the skin. This lead to scientists realizing that for the most part the idea of phenotype and indeed a strict definition for biological sex is actually pretty wishy-washy.

The reason you weren't taught this in high school is more or less that they just don't prioritize it because they have to coach a group of students, many of whom are not scholarly material, through an overview of stuff. High school biology is basically all technically wrong because it's been simplified to give you a taste of the discipline. If you start going to med school the first thing they do is tell you to light everything you think you know about the body on fire, throw it in the trash and start from scratch because half the stuff you were taught is going to need be unlearned. "Chromosome = sex" is one of the things that goes in the burn bin.

Technically that would be a defense if the god in question was actually as powerful as they say they are or that they are nessisarily good. There is always a possibility that Gods exist but are not on the hook to tell the truth and their goals do not align with humans.

A lying god telling the kids they have magic powers well beyond them and proving it like an uncle playing a dumb trick on the three year olds at a family reunion is a possibility. Maybe God exists and is just kind of an ass?

"Biological (insert gender here)" serves as a dogwhistle for a lot of organizations that actively push trans bigotry. It gives a fake impression of a scientific take on sex that really hasn't been embraced by the scientific community for about 50 years at this point.

They aren't telling you what to think here, they are alerting you to a tool that organized bigotry is using and giving potential tools to subvert it. Once you see "Biological man/woman" for what it actually is (non-scientfic false categorization) it really can't be unseen.

Also - Can we stop with the calls that people are trying to control what people think? It's pretty lame. There's nothing about this interaction that is trying to force you. All that's happening is you've denied that a certain school of thought is valid. You have stated your reasons why you think it's invalid and now people who have taken upthat school of thought are defending their position. That's just normal discourse.

Give you a hint. When people tell you "they are trying to control what people think" that's actually doing more to control people - because it's asking someone to take it on someone else's faith that there's nothing to be listened to rather than engaging with the arguement yourself.

Trans masc person checking in. Might be my bias or community or something but I get way less misgendering by guys under 30 than basically any other demographic. They seem to pick it up faster and be really chill about it in ways that a lot of the women in my life really don't seem to get as comfortable with.

But there is definitely a part of my brain that sees men as being of my tribe in ways that women are not. Like not to say that I don't have incredible women in my life whom I have incredibly close bonds with... But there's definitely some kind of cognitive distance that has always kind of been there.

I think trans femmes might experience a similar situation with feeling accepted by women ( Or maybe not because TERFs tend to look at them as a threat) but to answer your question about if the bros are alright... Yeah, they good.

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.

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.