Saudi women’s quest for change enabled them earn citizenship rights

Interesting long read. Much different than my time there in mid-80s:

Saudi women have obtained their citizenship rights through their own struggle and there is little truth in the widely held idea in the West that their role in the fight for their freedom has been negligible.

The finding is part of a new research in the journal Diogenes authored by Zahia Salhi, a professor at Sharjah University’s College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences.

“Far from being passive victims of their society, Saudi women are active agents who possess the tools and the necessary resilience that enable them to militate for their citizenship rights. This goes against prevailing stereotypes, especially in the West,” says Prof. Salhi.

The research comes as Saudi Arabia’s women can now get freely behind the wheel, travel abroad without a male guardian’s permission, apply for passports, and are almost on equal footing to men.

These rights, unimaginable a decade ago, were only honored in response to harsh and long struggle by Saudi women for equality, Prof. Salhi adds.

Prof. Salhi’s research maps out Saudi women’s battle for equal treatment and full citizenship via a vibrant movement, demonstrating that the Saudi women’s course of struggle for their rights is not dissimilar to that of other women’s movements elsewhere.

“My research traces Saudi women’s trajectory to secure citizenship rights and achieve autonomy against the threat of a conservatism that is deeply imbedded in the Saudi socio-cultural fabric,” affirms Prof. Salhi.

Two important epochs in Saudi Arabia’s modern history are highlighted in Prof. Salhi’s research as watershed moments that awakened Saudi women to the fact that their rights have long been usurped.

The first watershed epoch in the pursuit of Saudi women for freedom began with the oil boom of the 1970s that brought in its wake massive wealth, fueling “numerous fundamental socio-historical changes,” Prof. Salhi writes.

The second occurred at the onset of the 1990s. “It is hardly surprising to note that before 1991 Saudi women could not mobilize in a movement to demand their confiscated rights. Until very recently, Saudi women were deprived of suffrage rights, freedom of movement, and the right to own their bodies and act freely without the consent of their male guardians,” Prof. Salhi points out in her research.

The research marks two incidents in Saudi Arabia, which Prof. Salhi says galvanized Saudi women movement, spurring women activists to voice their protest and even demonstrate openly for their rights.

In one incident which took place in 2002,15 girls died and many others were injured when fire broke out in a girls-only school as religious police prevented girls from escaping and barred volunteers to come to their rescue because “the (female) students were not wearing their abayas, possibly because their (male) guardians were not present,” Prof. Salhi writes.

The tragic incident was a game-changer as it emboldened both women and the Saudi government to curtail religious police powers and transfer responsibility for women education to the government-run Ministry of Education.

The incident and subsequent events “led to a wave of protests by female university students … culminating in the protest at King Khalid University in the Saudi town of Bha” in which reportedly nearly 8,000 female students took part, Prof. Salhi notes in her research.

“In the absence of a free national press that would broadcast the true story about their demonstration, the students resorted to and posted videos about the event. Furthermore, in a desperate act to let the world know about their ordeal, they reached out to international news agencies by telephone to tell their own story.

“Although the demonstration was brutally put down by the police, this event constitutes a milestone in Saudi women’s mobilization to demand their citizenship rights.”

Another incident outlined by Prof. Salhi as pivotal on the path of Saudi women’s drive for their rights is their defiance of the driving ban.

She mentions several driving protests by Saudi women one of them as recently as 2013 in which hundreds of them, in defiance of religious police and civil authorities, appeared behind the wheel on main streets despite their being fully aware of the consequences.

One main factor assisting Saudi women to stage protests and demonstrate for their rights relates to education which Prof. Salhi sees as a major catalyst for change and women’s ongoing struggle to slacken the grip of the conservative and clerical dominance of the society.

“Saudi women have indeed gained in feminist political awareness and against the fortress of conservative ideology, they have reaped important human rights achievements,” says Prof. Salhi. “Having followed closely the work of the women of the Saudi Shura Council (legislative body), I can affirm that they are not mere ‘cosmetic female representation’ in the council, but active women who have their human rights at heart.”

Prof. Salhi’s research dwells at length with Saudi women’s campaigns for their rights among them the July 2016 launch of the “I Am My Own Guardian” campaign via a hashtag and posts on social media, which eventually culminated in a 2019 royal decree allowing them to travel independently.

“They are intelligent, outspoken, highly motivated, and mostly determined to secure more rights for Saudi women. They demanded legal representation from the state, in the form of full citizenship and governmental responsiveness to their demands as citizens,” Prof. Salhi says, adding that Saudi women’s struggle for rights encompasses calls for social recognition and economic redistribution.

Prof. Salhi believes her research will have good implications, hoping for the findings to change stereotypical perceptions of Saudi women. “They (the findings) will be valuable for international organizations such as Amnesty International, and the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women.

“I hope the research will help forming a different judgment about Saudi women, who have often been perceived as passive victims of their religion and culture.

“Saudi Women, like their Muslim sisters from across the world, do not need the West to save them from their own people, as often claimed by Western feminists. They know how to fight for their rights, and they know how to achieve them.”

Asked what she would expect from Saudi women reading her research, Prof. Salhi said first she would like them to “feel good about themselves and their important achievements in their quest for becoming full citizens.”

And second, she would be happy if after reading her article, Saudi ‘s reaction was “thank you for not describing us as victims.”

The research is part of a larger project Prof. Salhi is considering investigating in the future to include cases of “feminist trajectories from other countries of the Arab and Muslim world.”

Source: Saudi women’s quest for change enabled them earn citizenship rights

Dave Snow: The groundbreaking Cass Review on transgender care is shifting the debate abroad. Yet it was barely reported by Canadian media  

While I don’t follow this issue closely, this analysis is nevertheless revealing on how the review and related issues are portrayed, particularly by the CBC:

Few Canadian policy issues are as polarizing as youth gender transition. Yet according to my analysis below, most Canadian media spent last month paying little to no attention to one of the most consequential reports on the topic…

Canadian media coverage of the Cass Review

As a major medical report on an issue where there is considerable Canadian political debate, one would have expected the Cass Review to garner considerable Canadian media attention.

To determine how the issue was covered in Canada, I conducted a content analysis of online articles from five mainstream media outlets (The Globe and MailNational PostToronto Star, CBC, and CTV) from the three-week period following the Cass Review’s publication (April 10 – April 30, 2024). These five outlets published a total of 15 stories that mentioned the Cass Review. Given that three stories (all from the National Post) only briefly mentioned it in passing, and one Associated Press story was published in two outlets, this meant a total of 11 unique stories in which the Cass Review featured prominently.

Coverage was dominated by the National Post, which featured seven articles on the Cass Review over an 11-day period between April 10 and April 20. By contrast, there were only two stories featuring the Cass Review in the Toronto Star, and only one each in CBC, CTV, and the Globe. Apart from the one AP story, every article applied the Cass Review to the Canadian context, with six mentioning Alberta’s proposed gender policies. The stories were split between hard news (six) and opinion pieces (five).

Given the National Post’s longstanding focus on youth gender transition, it is not surprising that it gave the Cass Review the most coverage. The other four outlets did not give it as much attention. The only hard news piece in the Toronto Star was a wire story written by the U.S.-based Associated Press. CTV’s one mention of Cass appeared in a piece about Alberta’s proposed gender policies and was only the result of Premier Smith raising it during an interview with the outlet. Meanwhile, the lone CBC article on the review was more of a condemnation than a news report (see below). The Globe and Maildid not feature Cass in a single hard news article, though the report was mentioned in an investigative opinion piece about gender transition in Canada written 16 days after the review was published. In total, only three of the six hard news pieces quoted from the Cass Review extensively, including two lengthy pieces from National Post reporter Sharon Kirkey and one Associated Press piece (published in both the Star and Post).

While there were only five opinion pieces published about the Cass Review, they shared several notable characteristics. All five opinion pieces—three from the National Post and one each in the Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail—portrayed the review positively, including descriptions such as “landmark” and“an exhaustive and rigorous report.” All five were broadly supportive of exercising greater caution around the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for youth. The Post’s Adam Zivo called such restrictions “a wise approach that Canada should follow,” while the Globe’s Robyn Urback cited multiple studies “exploring the potential long-term effects of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones on bone densityfertilitysexual function, and cognitive development” (links in original). Moreover, the five opinion writers demonstrated considerable knowledge of the review itself, with Cass quoted or paraphrased a total of 1611eightfour, and three times, respectively.

By contrast, the CBC’s one news story, published five days after the Cass Review, only quoted it twice. The 1,750-word article, “What Canadian doctors say about new U.K. review questioning puberty blockers for transgender youth,” spent more time criticizing the report than describing it. The story did not quote any proponents of the Cass Review, but it did contain over a dozen quotes from three organizations and three Canadian doctors who were supportive of the gender-affirming model. Two of those doctors criticized the Cass Review directly: one wondered if it was “coming from a place of bias” and “trying to create fear around gender-affirming care,” while another called it “politically motivated.”

One sentence in particular, written by the journalist, is indicative of the CBC’s framing: “The Cass Review, while aiming to be an independent assessment, has been criticized as flawed and anti-trans by trans activists in the U.K., and was described as a product of the U.K.’s hostile environment for trans people in the International Journal of Transgender Health” (links in original). The CBC journalist did not specify the difference between an “independent assessment” and “aiming” to be independent.

However, the International Journal of Transgender Health piece cited by  the CBC journalist refers to the Cass Review as an example of “Cis-supremacy in the UK’s approach to healthcare for trans children.” It was written by a researcher who specializes in “trans inclusion and Applied Trans Studies” and currently holds a grant for “Building Lived Experience Accountability into Culturally Competent Health and Well-being Assessment for Trans Youth Social Justice.” The CBC did not address whether that piece, which was published nearly a month before the Cass Review’s final report came out, was similarly “aiming” to be independent in its assessment of Cass.

This CBC article has garnered considerable attention. It was criticized by American journalist Jesse Singal as “critically dangerous science miscommunication,” while Hub contributor Peter Menzies described it as “so bereft of balance that one could only conclude it [CBC] had abandoned any pretence of principled journalism in favour of playing the role of ally.” But, to regular observers of the CBC, this story was entirely in keeping with its ongoing approach to covering youth gender transition.

People involved in a march against the teaching of so-called “gender ideology” in schools, stand in front of the New Brunswick legislature as they yell across the street at pro-transgender rights counter-protesters in Fredericton, Wednesday, Sept. 20, 2023. Stephen MacGillivray/The Canadian Press. 

Canadian coverage of other LGBTQ topics

Given that major Canadian outlets paid limited attention to the Cass Review, apart from the National Post, observers may wonder if this simply reflected a media tendency to ignore LGBTQ issues.

To test for this, I also conducted a search of stories containing terms like “LGBTQ,” “transgender,” and “gender identity” at each of the five outlets during the same period (April 10-30). I then analyzed stories in which LGBTQ issues were the main topic.

Between April 10-30, in addition to the 11 stories about Cass described above, there were 25  stories on the topic of Canadian LGBTQ issues: 14 at the CBC, six at CTV, three at the Globe and Mail, and one each at the Toronto Starand National Post (this includes one identical Canadian Press wire story published by the Globe, Star, and CTV).

However, not one of these additional Canadian stories mentioned the Cass Review. Some of this was understandable, as most CBC and CTV articles, for example, were local stories covering topics such as a proposed LGBTQ community centre in Montreal, legal battles over New Brunswick’s pronoun policy, and a summer camp for LGBTQ children in Newfoundland and Labrador.

However, in addition to these 25 Canadian-focused LGBTQ stories, the five outlets also published  66 internationally-focused LGBTQ stories. None of these mentioned the Cass Review. All were written by foreign wire services.

Thirty stories were published by the National Post, 27 by the Toronto Star, five by CTV, four by he Globe and Mail, and none by the CBC. Nearly 80 percent (52/66) were focused on American politics, but the 14 other stories covered topics such as Swedish and German laws making changing your gender easier, the passage of an anti-LGBTQ law in Iraq, and a Hong Kong trans activistgetting a male ID card.

Canadian news outlets’ lack of attention to the Cass Review cannot be explained by a lack of interest in international news on LGBTQ issues. The Toronto Star published 28 hard news stories about international LGBTQ issues during this period, but only one mentioned the Cass review. Likewise, the Globe and Mail and CTV published four and five international news stories on LGBTQ issues respectively, none of which mentioned the Cass Review.

 Consequences for Canada

Three broad conclusions can be drawn from the Canadian media’s coverage of the Cass Review. First, apart from the National Post, hard news coverage of the groundbreaking report was limited. Moreover, this minimal coverage cannot be explained by a lack of interest in LGBTQ issues, as these outlets published many Canadian and international LGBTQ-focused stories about topics far less prominent. Perhaps it is unsurprising that a conservative outlet was more likely to report on a major study that appeared to vindicate arguments associated with conservative political positions. Yet the lack of reporting by other news outlets brings to mind a quote from American journalist Nellie Bowles about the 2020 riots around policing and African Americans in Kenosha, Wisconsin: “How the mainstream media controlled the narrative was by not covering it.”

Second, despite this minimal reporting in Canada, the Cass Review seems to have shifted the parameters of the debate over youth gender transition. The way that it has been covered in international media suggests it will now be far more difficult to paint those who favour a more cautious approach to social transition, puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormones as “transphobic.” Although Canadian hard news coverage of Cass was limited, Canadian opinion pieces demonstrate a similar shift. All five opinion pieces (including one from the Toronto Star) covered the Cass Review favourably. All raised criticisms about the prevalence of the gender-affirming model across Canada. In the recent past, the Globe and Star have not been shy about publishing opinionpieces lauding the gender-affirming model. But no such opinion pieces were published in response to the Cass Review.

Finally, as the debate around youth gender medicine shifts, the CBC appears to have dug in its heels in support of the gender-affirming model. In previous research for The Hub, I documented how the national public broadcaster chose allyship over objectivity in its coverage of youth gender transition. That trend has clearly continued. The CBC has often been criticized in general for progressive bias, but it is difficult to recall another policy issue for which the CBC’s lack of balance has been so strident and so sustained. As scientific and policy debates around youth gender transition evolve, this issue will provide a litmus test for whether CBC can provide objective coverage on contentious social and medical topics. For now, the public broadcaster is failing that test.

Source: Dave Snow: The groundbreaking Cass Review on transgender care is shifting the debate abroad. Yet it was barely reported by Canadian media

Khan: Gender-equality rights, it turns out, aren’t safe from the notwithstanding clause

Of note:

… Perhaps the most jarring analysis is the Court’s dismissal of arguments by the bill’s opponents based on section 28, which enshrines gender-equality rights in the Charter. That argument makes the point that Bill 21 disproportionately restricts the freedom of religion and expression of Muslim women compared to men. The notwithstanding clause cannot be used to shield laws that discriminate between women and men – i.e., it cannot override section 28.

In fact, during the drafting of the Charter, Canadian women demanded the exclusion of section 28 from the notwithstanding clause. They had the foresight to ensure that gender-equality rights could not be denied by the potential whims of future governments.

But Quebec’s appeals court took great pains to explain that section 28 is, in fact, included in the notwithstanding clause. How? Well, by actually being included in each of the rights enshrined in sections 2 and 7 to 15, and thus having no stand-alone value in of itself.

For example, the Court considered a hypothetical law that gives police the power to detain and search all women unaccompanied by a male in public between midnight and 5 a.m. This violates sections 8 (security against unreasonable search) and 9 (no arbitrary detention). The Court argues that if the notwithstanding clause was invoked to shield the law, section 28 cannot be used to declare the law unconstitutional on the basis of gender inequality, since its only value lies in its association with existing rights – not rights that have been suspended.

The Court’s logic reminds me of the following imperfect analogy: it’s the pre-1960era, section 28 is an unmarried woman, and her only value is through her association with a man, say a father, a brother, a husband, a son (any one of sections 2 and 7-15). Where no such man exists, she has no real inherent value of her own.

The Court’s logic is also dangerous, as it means there is no real protection for women against discriminatory laws if a legislature pre-emptively invokes the notwithstanding clause. Her personal agency and equal opportunity can be taken away at the behest of a hostile legislature. Just ask Muslim women in Quebec.

Source: Gender-equality rights, it turns out, aren’t safe from the notwithstanding clause

Critics of D.E.I. Forget That It Works

Contrary to other studies highlighting the limited effectiveness, these HBS academics share their experience with preparing students for a more diverse workforce:

As Harvard-based educators and advisers with decades of collective experience, we have worked with organizations failing to meet this objective and taught M.B.A. students how to negotiate difference, preparing them for a work force more diverse than ever. In our experience, many organizations working on D.E.I. goals are getting stuck at the diversity stage — recruiting difference without managing it effectively — and generating frustration and cynicism about their efforts along the way. They are now at risk of stopping in the middle of a complex change journey, declaring failure prematurely.

Inclusion, as we define it, creates the conditions where everyone can thrive and where our differences as varied, multidimensional people are not only tolerated but also valued. A willingness to pursue the benefits of D.E.I. — the full participation and fair treatment of all team members — renders organizational wholes greater than the sum of their parts.

At a time when some organizations, feeling the politicized ripple effects of affirmative action’s repeal, are at risk of abandoning the objectives of D.E.I., our experiences suggest that to do so is bad for individuals, organizations and American society writ large. Persuasive scholarship has identified the ways in which we become more effective leaders when we collaborate skillfully with people who don’t already think like us — people with different perspectives, assumptions and experiences of moving through the world.

Erik Larson’s firm, Cloverpop, helps companies make and learn from decisions. When Mr. Larson and his research team compared the decision quality of individuals versus teams, they found thatall-male teams outperformed individuals nearly 60 percent of the time, but gender diverse teams outperformed individuals almost 75 percent of the time. Teams that were gender and geographically diverse, and had at least one age gap of 20 years or more, made better decisions than individuals 87 percent of the time. If you’ve ever called a grandparent for advice or tested an idea with a skeptical teenager, you get what this research was trying to quantify. We often learn the most from people who think most differently from us.

Getting people to share what they know that other people don’t know is essential to collective performance. Our Harvard Business School colleague Amy Edmondson and her research collaborator, Mike Roberto, designed a simulation where five-person teams must figure out how to climb Mount Everest. Teams reporting higher feelings of group belonging repeatedly outperform other teams because their members share more of their unique information about summiting Everest.

These findings are consistent with Ms. Edmondson’s research on the performance advantages of “psychological safety,” the cultural underpinning of inclusion. Individuals, she finds, are more likely to share their views in an environment that does not belittle, or worse, punish those who offer differing opinions, particularly to more powerful colleagues. In a recent study of 62 drug development teams, Ms. Edmondson and Henrik Bresman found that diverse teams, when assessed by senior leaders, outperform their more homogenous peers only in the presence of psychological safety. More diversity is not always better – from a performance standpoint, diversity without the inclusion can actually make things worse.

Inclusion work, done well, seeks to scale these kinds of results. Among other payoffs, organizations that get inclusion right at scale seem to be smarter, more innovative and more stable. One explanation is that they can see their competitive landscape — threats, risks, opportunities — more clearly and have greater access to the full knowledge base of their people.

But achieving gains like this can feel elusive when the will to participate in D.E.I. is waning. It can be tempting to put in place superficial fixes to achieve the optics of inclusion — a primary concern of D.E.I. critics — such as reserving roles for specific demographics. This is often illegal and rarely helpful, and it provides at least one area of broad agreement in this polarized debate: a distaste for hiring and promotion schemes based on an individual’s identity. A way to correct for these concerns is inclusive recruitment processes and rigorous, transparent selection criteria that everyone understands. It is not to scale back investments in inclusion, which would restrict our ability to build healthy, dynamic organizations.

Inclusion work is a way to create the conditions where people you don’t already know — those who are separated from you by more than one or two degrees — can succeed. For example, many U.S. tech companies have successfully created workplaces where young, straight, white men they know can thrive, but have a harder time recruiting, developing, promoting and retaining women, people of color, people from the L.G.B.T.Q.+ community, people over the age of 35 and the young, straight, white men they don’tknow. Organizations with these outcomes are typically relying too much on familiar networks — the people they know — and when they find someone good enough in those networks, they stop looking.

That is one reason we end up with all-male boards. Senior teams with no people of color. Professorial ranks with no conservatives. If the demographics of your team don’t bear much resemblance to the demographics of the broader population, then you’ve likely put artificial barriers on your talent pools and undermined your ability to reap the rewards of inclusion.

Everyone must be better off for inclusion initiatives to work. An example from Harvard Business School illustrates that point. It has always been an important part of our school’s mission to recruit military leaders and ensure that they can thrive, not in spite of their nontraditional training and experience, but precisely because of it. Over a decade ago, the school was succeeding at recruiting military veterans, but once in the classroom, they were less likely to excel academically. The military student group began providing specialized review sessions that focused on where its constituents were collectively getting stuck, making explicit the links between the M.B.A. curriculum and their military technical training.

Within a few years, gaps in performance closed. The performance of nonmilitary students did not decline because those students got extra attention. In fact, the rest of the student body benefited because military veterans became more active and confident in classroom discussions, offering unique insights into the high stakes of leadership decisions. The school’s experience with the value of customized review sessions also helped close performance gaps with other groups, including women and international students.

What does this work look like inside organizations? Sometimes it means more actively recruiting in unfamiliar places. Sometimes it means becoming more systematic about development opportunities. It can mean improving the ways you assess people for promotion, which can be riddled with bias and pitfalls, relying instead on more objective and self-evident advancement criteria. Indeed, what we hear most often from underrepresented leaders — X’s in organizations filled with Y’s — is the desire for a fair chance to compete, in workplaces where the rules of the game are clear and applied equally to all.

We know that historical change is like sleep. It happens gradually, sometimes fitfully, then all at once. We are in the fitful stage of our evolution toward truly inclusive organizations. But let us not get confused: Inclusion is an end goal that channels universal hopes for meritocracy, reflects America at its best and creates the foundation for an even more competitive future.

Caroline Elkins and Frances Frei are professors at Harvard Business School. Anne Morriss is the co-author, with Professor Frei, of “Move Fast and Fix Things: The Trusted Leader’s Guide to Solving Hard Problems.”

Source: Critics of D.E.I. Forget That It Works

Les femmes et minorités, encore souvent des candidatures «poteaux» au Canada

Of note (my previous analyses have focused on growth in minority candidates and MPs but this reinforces other studies showing similar overall pattern):

….Le parcours de Nathanielle Morin fait partie des données compilées dans un article rédigé par des chercheurs de l’Université d’Ottawa à paraître dans la prochaine édition de la revue Electoral Studies, et consulté par Le Devoir.

L’analyse du parcours de 3966 candidats qui se sont présentés lors des trois dernières élections générales montre que les lesbiennes, les gais, les bisexuels, les transgenres ou les queers (LGBTQ+) autodéclarés et les femmes sont nettement surreprésentés (de 17 et de 6 points de pourcentage respectivement) dans les défaites écrasantes — celles dans lesquelles ils sont arrivés plus de 15 points derrière. Les candidats autochtones ou issus des minorités visibles sont aussi désavantagés, quoique d’une moins grande ampleur.

À la surprise des chercheurs, le Parti libéral ne fait pas meilleure figure que le Parti conservateur à ce chapitre : les candidats issus de minorités sont plus souvent nommés là où les deux formations s’attendent à perdre.

« On n’a pas trouvé de grandes différences entre les libéraux et les conservateurs, même si les libéraux ont tendance à souligner qu’ils ont la parité et la question de diversité plus à coeur que le Parti conservateur », souligne Valérie Lapointe, chercheuse postdoctorale en études politiques à l’Université d’Édimbourg et coautrice de l’étude.

En fait, ces deux partis présentent surtout des hommes hétérosexuels dans les circonscriptions réputées « prenables », une tendance aggravée par le fait que les députés sortants conservent généralement leur place comme candidats. À l’issue des dernières élections fédérales, la Chambre des communes était constituée à 69,5 % d’hommes….

Source: Les femmes et minorités, encore souvent des candidatures «poteaux» au Canada

Pierre Poilievre’s inner circle divided over how to tackle gender issues, sources say

Not surprising. Some difficult distinctions to make and hard to communicate nuanced distinctions such as counselling support vs chemical of physical treatment for minors:

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s advisers are divided on the position the party should take on issues of gender identity and diversity, multiple Conservative sources told Radio-Canada.

While some Conservatives see questions of gender and identity as matters of principle, or as opportunities to make political gains, others fear that the polarizing issue could turn some voters against them in the next election campaign and distract from the pocketbook issues that have been the focus of Poilievre’s messaging.

Radio-Canada spoke with about ten Conservatives anonymously, to allow them to express themselves freely.

“We have not yet taken a clear position on the issue,” said one Conservative source. “I expected us to go further and move more quickly.”

Other party advisers say the leader intends to remain vague on the subject for now.

“He’ll be clearer when it’s beneficial for him,” said one Conservative strategist.

Among those who have Poilievre’s ear, “there are those who think they can use this issue to make gains with the base, and those who think the bet is too dangerous because it could lose moderate voters,” said a third source.

Asked to comment on internal discussions within his party on the issue, Poilievre’s office responded by referring to his past comments in the media.

In June, Poilievre said that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had no business weighing in on New Brunswick’s policy on LGBTQ students and called on him to “butt out and let provinces run schools and let parents raise kids.”

Conservative members of Parliament steered clear of the issue when asked on Wednesday,following a directive from the party not to speak publicly about the issue.

“I stay out of it,” said Manitoba MP James Bezan.

Alberta MP Glen Motz simply said “thank you” and walked away when asked.

Provincial governments in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick have moved to require parental consent before students under 16 can have schools use their preferred pronouns and names — a measure that critics say could put LGBTQ kids at risk.

Poilievre has said that parents’ rights must be respected and that it’s up to the provinces to decide how to manage the issue in the education system.

No position on gender-affirming care for minors

Last month, at a Conservative Party of Canada convention in Quebec City, party delegates voted to ban “surgical or chemical interventions” for gender transition in minors.

Poilievre still has not said whether he supports this idea.

He also has not commented on Saskatchewan’s proposed use of the notwithstanding clause to attempt to shield its pronouns policy from a legal challenge.

Some Conservative advisers argue Poilievre is missing an opportunity by not getting behind the policy approved by Conservatives at the convention.

“These stories really affect people and it’s good for us,” said one party strategist. “Our members’ vote is in sync with the silent majority of Canadians. If Pierre Poilievre openly supported it, he’d get a lot of votes quickly.”

Several sources told Radio-Canada that the issue of protecting children against “transgender ideology” is popular with women and some cultural communities, particularly in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal — demographic groups that Poilievre is actively courting ahead of the next election.

But the consensus among Conservatives is that economics must be their main focus going into the next election campaign.

“It’s our bread and butter,” said one source.

Still, the issue of gender diversity concerns Conservatives because they see it as a double-edged sword — an opportunity to make political gains that also would open them up to Liberal attacks.

Sources told Radio-Canada some of Poilievre’s advisers are warning the party against trying to make quick political gains with a volatile and polarizing issue.

“We have to be careful to avoid this issue becoming an Achilles heel,” said a source.

Recent demonstrations like the 1 Million March 4 Kids, intended to protest against sexual orientation and gender identity education in schools, attracted some protesters who held signs with homophobic and transphobic messages.

“We remember what happened with (former Conservative leader) Andrew Scheer and abortion, which undermined his campaign. We definitely don’t want to replay that film,” said another Conservative source.

During the 2019 campaign, Scheer said he was not going to reopen the issue of abortion. During the first debate in French, he repeatedly refused to say whether he was pro-choice. Soon after, his polling numbers dropped.

“If this subject turns against us, especially in big cities and more progressive regions, it risks distracting from the economic message,” said another Conservative.

The issue of transgender rights in schools “is a political sideshow,” said one party source.

“It’s a tactic of the Liberals who want to trip us up on social issues,” said another. “If we put too much emphasis on this issue, we give them a stick to beat us with.”

Despite the mounting pressure from different factions within the party, the leader has been slow to take a clear position.

“Pierre is very cerebral,” said one adviser. “He wants to take the time to form an idea and take a position without having to change his mind.”

Source: Pierre Poilievre’s inner circle divided over how to tackle gender issues, sources say

Nicolas: Quand on «débat» de toi

Interesting parallel between the Charte des valeurs québécoises, and the tensions it provoked for visible minorities, and the current discourse around trans and non-binary and how this high profile debate adversely affects teenagers. And the irony, or symmetry, having the same minister, Bernard Drainville, responsible for both:

Ça aura fait dix ans, le 10 septembre dernier, que le projet de « Charte des valeurs québécoises » fut présenté à l’Assemblée nationale. La nouvelle avait eu l’effet d’une bombe dans mon cercle d’amis. Nous avions vingt et quelques années, notre expérience en mobilisation politique et sociale allait bien au-delà de notre âge, et nous étions déterminés à défendre l’idée d’un Québec « ouvert » ou « inclusif ».

En moins de deux semaines, nous avions cherché l’appui de regroupements juifs, musulmans et sikhs, puis rassemblé 5000 personnes au centre-ville de Montréal pour une manifestation où nous scandions notamment que « le Québec n’est pas la France, vive la différence ». Charles Taylor, déjà d’âge vénérable, avait escaladé devant nous la boîte de notre pick-up de location pour prononcer un discours passionné dont la force était directement puisée dans l’énergie de la révolte. Pour moi, qui n’avais vu l’homme que dans son rôle de « sage » aux audiences télévisées de la fameuse commission sur les accommodements raisonnables, l’image était saisissante.

Le poids de l’actualité était, bien sûr, le plus lourdement porté par les minorités religieuses, les femmes musulmanes, en particulier. Ce qui était plus difficile à prévoir, c’est que bien des alliés allaient aussi recevoir le projet de loi comme une attaque personnelle. Certains ont vu dans la « Charte » une attaque à leur conception des valeurs québécoises ou aux droits et libertés, de manière plus générale. D’autres ont vu un coup de couteau dans leur rêve d’un Québec indépendant et le signe d’un virage vers un nationalisme qui n’allait jamais pouvoir toucher le Québec dans toute sa diversité, ni même la génération montante.

Le sentiment de peur, lui, était ressenti avec le plus d’acuité par mes amis qui, comme moi, sont des enfants d’immigrants. Certains appartenaient à des minorités religieuses, d’autres non. Parce qu’« autre » aux yeux de la majorité, on se disait tous qu’un gouvernement qui s’attaquait ainsi aux droits d’un groupe minoritaire pouvait s’attaquer à n’importe quel autre groupe demain, dont le nôtre. Ce raisonnement était rarement explicite, et même pas toujours conscient. C’est moins par les mots que par nos comportements, l’urgence d’agir et les émotions partagées qu’on constatait qu’on se sentait tous un peu dans le même bateau.

Déjà, au début de l’automne 2013, mes tripes me criaient que ce « débat » allait mal finir. Comme fille de la banlieue de Québec, je connaissais trop bien comment les discours médiatiques affectent rapidement notre quotidien. Enfant, j’avais pu sentir les regards se tourner vers moi les matins où, quand j’entrais dans l’autobus, André Arthur vociférait contre les Noirs ou les immigrants dans la radio du chauffeur. Ados, mon frère et moi avions été agressés verbalement par des clients à quelques reprises dans nos emplois d’étudiants, alors que politiciens, animateurs de radio et autres chroniqueurs pompaient quasi quotidiennement les gens contre les « minorités qui exagèrent » en plein coeur de la « crise des accommodements raisonnables ».

La plupart ne voyaient la « Charte des valeurs » que pour ce qu’elle était explicitement, c’est-à-dire un projet de loi proposant des idées précises pouvant être adoptées ou non au terme d’un débat. Quand on comprend, ou qu’on a subi directement le pouvoir des mots dans une société, on voit d’abord la « Charte » comme un désinhibiteur de parole, qui prend par ailleurs la forme d’un projet de loi.

Le texte de la « Charte » n’est jamais devenu loi, mais un certain type de discours sur les minorités s’est répandu comme une traînée de poudre dans l’espace public québécois à partir de 2013. Il y a dix ans, les plus sensibles pouvaient déjà comprendre que le moment allait transformer, au moins pour une génération, ce qui était dicible et audible en politique québécoise.

Ce que j’écris sera difficile à recevoir pour plusieurs lecteurs. Je vois venir d’ici les « avec des gens comme elle, on ne pourrait plus débattre, on ne pourrait plus rien dire ! ». Bien sûr, là n’est pas mon propos. Ce genre de réactions est le plus souvent nourri par une insistance sur les intentions — des gens qui proposent certaines idées politiques ou tiennent certains discours dans l’espace public — et un refus de se pencher sérieusement aussi sur les conséquences des mots, leurs effets, leur pouvoir.

Il me semble que si on veut être en mesure de faire un exercice de réflexion honnête sur un événement politique aussi marquant que le fameux débat sur la « Charte », on ne peut pas faire semblant que la circulation des idées dans l’espace public n’a pas aussi un effet direct sur le sentiment de sécurité, au quotidien, des Québécois dont on décide de « débattre ».

Le hasard fait que l’homme qui avait déposé le projet de « Charte des valeurs » en 2013 est aujourd’hui toujours ministre, et que cette fois, il est en train de trouver comment réagir à ceux qui voudraient qu’on fasse des enfants trans et non binaires un objet de débat national.

M. Drainville, et tous les acteurs de la classe politique et médiatique concernés, laissons de côté nos différends une minute. Je vous invite à imaginer ces enfants et ces ados, déjà vulnérables pour un ensemble de raisons, entrer dans l’autobus au moment où l’on « débat » du pour et du contre de leur existence et de leurs droits à la radio, et à voir les regards se tourner vers eux. Je vous intime de bien vouloir vous mettre dans leur peau. Tentez de votre mieux de comprendre l’impact de chacun de vos mots sur leurs interactions sociales quotidiennes. Interrogez-vous sur la place qu’ils auront la certitude d’avoir, ou non, dans la société québécoise. Dites maintenant ce que vous avez à dire comme si ces jeunes étaient directement en face de vous. Parce que, croyez-moi, ils vous écoutent.

Anthropologue, Emilie Nicolas est chroniqueuse au Devoir et à Libération. Elle anime le balado Détours pour Canadaland.

Source: Quand on «débat» de toi

Kheiriddin: Pierre Poilievre’s path to victory could run through the culture wars

She may well be right given that most of these resolutions were carefully crafted and reflect issues that many may feel activists and advocates have been excessive in their demands and approaches. And her point on that voters may have different views on each of these resolutions appears likely:

The Conservative policy convention has come and gone amid a hail of plaudits, photo-ops, and favourable polls. Leader Pierre Poilievre has managed to unite the party faithful and win over Canadian voters, by tapping into their economic angst and fatigue with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who is increasingly seen as out of touch, and out of time.

But the convention also opened a new political fault line: the culture wars. Delegates voted that children should be prohibited from gender-related “life-altering medicinal or surgical interventions,” upheld women’s rights to single-sex spaces and sports, and rejected mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion training and race-based hiring practices. A majority also supported allowing Canadians to refuse vaccines on the grounds of “bodily autonomy.”

Pushback was swift. A former Conservative candidate who is trans said a vote against gender-affirming care could cause some children to commit suicide. A local riding president warned against reopening the vaccine debate. But most of the criticism came from the media and analysts who say the culture wars are a distraction that will hurt the Tories at the polls, like the “barbaric practices” tip line did in the 2015 election. Poilievre has a huge lead, based mostly on economic issues: why blow it? People only care about the rent and the grocery bill; these other concerns will not inform their political choices.

For some voters, however, these issues are highly motivating. Research firm Angus Reid Institute recently asked Canadians what they think about the culture wars, and identified two groups of voters who strongly engage on them: “zealous activists” who favour “progressive” policies like pronoun use and represent 17 per cent of voters, and “defiant objectors” who reject such changes and constitute 20 per cent of the electorate. Broken down by party affiliation, a clear pattern emerges: 47 per cent of Canadians who voted Conservative in 2021 are defiant objectors, while only three per cent of Liberal and NDP voters are.

But while 44 per cent of NDP voters are zealous activists, only 22 per cent of Liberal voters are, suggesting that there is much less dogmatism in this group.

For the parties, this means picking their battles and carefully choosing their bedfellows. The culture wars are not intersectional. Parents who object to the medical transitioning of children do not necessarily support restrictions on abortion. Advocates for women’s only spaces don’t necessarily believe people should be able to refuse vaccines. They may also be uncomfortable lining up with people who do.

Angus Reid will be publishing more data in the weeks to come on specific issues, but their findings on gender identity align with the results of the Conservative convention: 43 per cent of Canadians say parents should both be informed and give consent if a child wants to change how they identify at school, while 35 per cent believe that parents should be informed but consent is not required. Those who supported the Conservative Party of Canada in the 2021 federal election are twice as likely as past Liberal voters (64 per cent to 30 per cent) and three times as likely as past NDP voters (20 per cent) to say parents’ consent is needed. At the Conservative convention, the resolution outlawing medical transition passed on the convention floor with 69 per cent.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the three words that came up most often in the survey to describe the culture wars were divisive (60 per cent), exhausting (59 per cent), and unnecessary (40 per cent). Pundits who say they are a side issue are wrong: they have seeped into Canadians’ daily lives. Their kids go to school and are told to state their preferred pronouns on the first day of class. Their grandmother goes to an aquafit program and is uncomfortable changing alongside men in an all-gender locker room. They attend DEI sessions where they are shamed for their skin color and just “go along” so as not to get cancelled.

As pollster Nik Nanos observed, although some may see risk on the social-policy front, the reality is that the Conservatives don’t need every voter: they need about 36 per cent. “A majority could oppose their social conservative agenda and they can still win an election.” And a silent majority could guarantee it.

Source: Pierre Poilievre’s path to victory could run through the culture wars

An Exploration of Methods to Estimate the Number of Immigrant Girls and Women at Risk of Female Genital Mutilation or Cutting in Canada

Of note:

Executive summary: It is estimated that at least 200 million girls and women around the world have experienced female genital mutilation or cutting (FGM/C). The World Health Organization defines FGM/C as “all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons” (World Health Organization 2008). The practice of FGM/C is concentrated in Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia. However, estimates of FGM/C prevalence vary greatly by country and even by region within countries, and FGM/C has been documented in as many as 92 countries (End FGM European Network, U.S. End FGM/C Network, Equality Now 2020). 

This report explores different approaches used in previous research to estimate the number of girls and women currently living in Canada who may be at riskNote  for FGM/C based on their (and their parents’) country of birth. Information on FGM/C in Canada may help to inform health care providers, community service providers, and policy makers interested in women, health care, and immigration about this issue in Canada. Additionally, this information may inform intervention strategies focusing on women’s human rights, gender equality, and women’s health (Ortensi and Menonna 2017).

In Canada, FGM/C is considered a form of aggravated assault under the Criminal Code (Department of Justice 2017). However, there is a lack of information on the prevalence of FGM/C in Canada. This information gap was highlighted on the International Day for Zero Tolerance for FGM/C in 2021, when Prime Minister Trudeau issued a statement indicating a need for improved data to address FGM/C within Canada (Government of Canada 2021). Monitoring FGM/C in Canada is important for addressing Sustainable Development Goal indicator 5.3.2, which is focused on determining the proportion of girls and women aged 15 to 49 years who have undergone FGM/C, by age (United Nations n.d.). Currently, there are no available data on this issue for Canada. 

While other nations, such as Australia and the United States, have estimated the number of immigrant girls and women at risk for FGM/C in their countries (Australia Institute of Health and Welfare 2019; Population Reference Bureau 2016), previous research examining FGM/C in Canada has largely been qualitative and focused on specific immigrant groups (e.g., Chalmers and Omer Hashi, 2000; 2002; Jacobson et al., 2018; Omorodian, 2020; Perovic et al., 2021). Therefore, an understanding of the number of women and girls in Canada who may be at risk for having experienced FGM/C is lacking. This information would be especially valuable for Canadian health care providers, because a recent study indicated that less than 10 percent of Canadian health care providers felt “very prepared” to care for FGM/C patients, and 90 percent indicated they would benefit from more information and training related to FGM/C (Deane et al., 2022). Additionally, FGM/C patients have reported negative experiences with health care providers in Canada including stigmatization, shame, judgment, inappropriate care, and disregard for health care preferences (e.g., method of delivery), with many indicating that they had delayed seeking health care during pregnancy because of these issues (Chalmers and Omer Hashi, 2000; Jacobson et al., 2022).

Since no national surveys directly collect information on FGM/C, estimates of FGM/C are derived through indirect measures, an approach consistent with other countries (e.g., the United States and Australia). Similar to FGM/C research in other nations, country- and age-specific prevalence rates from international surveys are used (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2019; Population Reference Bureau 2016). Data on the country-specific estimated prevalence rates of FGM/C were obtained from the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) (UNICEF 2017). These estimates were applied to the 2016 Census Canadian population counts of women living in Canada who were born in one of the 29 countries for which nationally representative data on FGM/C prevalence were available at the time of this analysis. 

Four different methods were used to estimate the number of girls and women living in Canada who may be at risk for FGM/C. In approach A, the estimated number of at-risk women in Canada was based on the 2016 Census immigration counts multiplied by 2017 UNICEF estimates for in-country prevalence of FGM/C. Approach B slightly refined this method by using age-specific estimates of FGM/C prevalence. Approach C added first-generation immigrant girls aged 0 to 14 years, as well as women aged 50 and older. Finally, approach D included second-generation immigrants—that is, those who were born in Canada and have at least one parent who was born outside of Canada. Since the rate of FGM/C among second-generation immigrants living in Canada is unclear, approach D estimated a range of risk for FGM/C, varying from no risk among the second generation (i.e., no cases of FGM/C if born in Canada) to the same risk as first-generation immigrants (high-end or upper-bound estimate).  

Among the approximately 125,000 reproductive-aged girls and women (aged 15 to 49) who were currently living in Canada, but had immigrated from one of the 29 countries where the practice of FGM/C was documented (UNICEF 2017), about 58,000 were estimated to be at risk for having experienced FGM/C. When the other first-generation immigrant girls and women (i.e., those aged 0 to 14 years and 50 and older) as well as second-generation girls and women aged 0 to 49 years were included, approximately 95,000 to 161,000 girls and women currently residing in Canada were estimated to be at risk of experiencing or having experienced FGM/C. 

Canada is home to a significant number of first- and second-generation immigrant girls and women who may be at risk for FGM/C, which may have implications for public policy related to health care, immigration, and public safety. However, several limitations warrant consideration. First, selective migration was not considered—that is, women who are more highly educated, who have higher incomes, and who are from urban areas are more likely to immigrate to Canada than their counterparts, and they (and their daughters) may be less at risk of having undergone or undergoing FGM/C (UNICEF 2013; Ortensi, Farina and Menonna 2015; Farina, Ortensi and Menonna 2016). Additionally, there is some evidence that women who migrate may be less likely to have undergone FGM/C, in particular if they are from countries with moderate or low prevalence of FGM/C (UNICEF 2013). Second, acculturation in Canada may mean that second-generation girls and women are less likely to undergo FGM/C. Third, the FGM/C estimates used in this analysis may be limited—rates in many countries are declining over time, and there may be variation in the rate of FGM/C within a country depending on the time of measurement. Moreover, since prevalence rates were only available for 29 countries, there may be women and girls in Canada from other countries of origin where FGM/C is practised that are not included in the calculations. Because of these factors, the estimates could over- or under-estimate the number of girls and women in Canada who are at risk for FGM/C and should not be interpreted as official estimates of FGM/C in Canada. 

Future work may include a qualitative exploration of the experiences of women from countries that practise FGM/C who now live in Canada. A qualitative approach is necessary to understand topics that are difficult to address through surveys, especially when the topics are sensitive and the terms used to describe and understand FGM/C vary. Additionally, qualitative research may better capture differing perspectives and cultural traditions associated with the practice of FGM/C. Future work is needed to inform regional variations within a country, as well as the applicability of country-specific rates of FGM/C to second-generation girls and women. Other research methods could also be explored to better understand the health implications and to address policies, programs, and interventions geared toward this group of women.

Source: An Exploration of Methods to Estimate the Number of Immigrant Girls and Women at Risk of Female Genital Mutilation or Cutting in Canada

The glass ceiling may be dinged, but study shows a new barrier for women – glass walls

Interesting:

Just when it looked like the glass ceiling was getting dinged, new research shows a new barrier for women who are looking to advance in their careers – glass walls.

study published in the Harvard Business Review in April looked at the experience of freelancer workers. When men broaden their experience they are rewarded, but when women do it they are penalized. This should be a wake-up call to both workers and organizations looking for the best outcomes.

The idea of a glass ceiling originated in the late 1970s when a Human Resources executive in the telecom industry named Marilyn Loden coined it to refer to the invisible barriers that too-often halted women in their climb to the C-Suite. Over the decades, organizations have made attempts to remove it and many women have succeeded in shattering it in terms of their own careers although there is more progress to be made.

These days, however, people are experimenting with different ways of working. U.S. freelance website Upwork estimates that as of 2022 nearly half of Gen Z and millennial workers did at least some freelance work. Although it is not always adopted by choice, freelancing is thought to have some advantages including letting workers be judged by the work rather than by how well they play corporate power games, but that might be a flawed assumption.

Evidence that female freelancers are running up against glass walls comes from research by Professors Yonghoon Lee of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Christy Zhou Koval of Michigan State University and is Soljee Susie Lee of Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University. They detail the experience of 8,000 freelance creative workers, specifically Korean pop music (K-pop) songwriters who released their first song between 2003 and 2012.

The authors judged success partly by the ability to release more songs (fewer than half of all songwriters released a second song). They found that when male songwriters expanded into fields beyond writing lyrics, such as arranging, they had more success.

That makes intuitive sense, suggesting that continuing success means expanding contacts and deepening their experience. Women should presumably have had the same experience, except that the researchers found the opposite was true. Female songwriters who tried out a new role after publishing a first song were less likely to get a second song released than were those who stayed as strictly lyricists.

The difference between the two experiences, the authors believe comes down to what decision-makers perceive as ‘agency’ or the ability of people to direct their own career paths. When researchers asked K-pop songwriters to evaluate the abilities of fictional freelancers’ profiles, they found that the women who expanded their roles were seen as being less competent and less committed to being songwriters than men who did the same thing.

When repeating the exercise in the U.S. using fictional profiles of cinematographers who expanded into production design, researchers found the same results. Men who branched out were seen as broadening their experiences by choice, while women who did so were seen as doing it because they had no choice, and in the process ended up diluting their original skills.

It would be easy to say that the experience of K-pop songwriters in Korea has nothing to do with the experience of those who work more traditional jobs in North America, but the results are worthy of reflection. Within many organizations both men and women are often encouraged to make lateral moves to gain experience, with the assumption being that by doing so they will enhance their ability to move up the ladder if they wish. If (unconsciously or consciously) women are perceived differently than men when they do, it might be that they should think about a different game plan.

The authors suggest ways to counter the glass wall, although some of them are depressingly retro. They suggest female freelancers use business names to obscure their gender and skip any bias toward women, a practice that hearkens back centuries. They also suggest that women who try out new roles take pains to communicate why they have done so, making it clear it was by their own choice. For organizations with traditional workers that want to avoid glass walls, the first step might be to acknowledge that they exist. That might mean establishing new metrics and taking a look at whether women who take lateral roles within organizations gain more or less ground than men who do the same thing.

The real eye-opener though is that women’s and men’s achievements, even when identical, are still being viewed through different lenses. Changing perceptions takes a lot more than changing a name, but hopefully the glass walls will fall faster than the ceilings.

Source: The glass ceiling may be dinged, but study shows a new barrier for women – glass walls