Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Mote and beam.

CSIS’s comments come as provincial policies on gender-affirming surgeries and pronoun preferences are being hotly debated across the country.

And it looks like they’ve taken a side. There’s only one “side” whose potential for violence seems to concern them:

“CSIS assesses that the violent threat posed by the anti-gender movement is almost certain to continue over the coming year…

As I would be considered a part of the “anti-gender movement” by trans activists and their allies (of which we can now count CSIS), I might very well have my own CSIS file. I’m not flattering myself with some degree of inflated “importance,” I’ve just seen how this shit has played out in the UK with police forces deployed against limericks, ribbons, stickers, and simple statements of reality, all of which have been characterized and acted upon by the police as actual threats.

… representing the gender ideology ‘agenda,’”…

Yah gotta love those scare quotes around agenda. As if the idea of a gender ideology agenda is a delusional fantasy with no existence in the real world. So we must be just imagining the placement of male offenders in women’s prisons, the branding of watchful waiting as “conversion therapy,” the removal of public funding from women’s shelters refusing to serve TiMs, men taking spots on women’s sports teams, universities turning washroom facilities into de facto mixed sex ones for the sake of “inclusion,” unions and school boards defending the public performances of misogynistic AGP fetshists in classrooms, etc. So what would CSIS have us believe, that none of this is happening, or that this is all healthy, or that we must stay silent in the face of these things happening? The UK police actions noted above, and this very CSIS announcement are part of that very same “agenda.”

What violent rhetoric?

Saying that there are only two sexes in humans, and that nobody can change sex; saying that men are not women; saying “No.” All “violent” if you ask the wrong people, and likely the very people currently advising CSIS in its current efforts. I imagine that the threshold for “violence” is going to be quite low.

Also I wonder if Balsam has seen the violent rhetoric emanating from the pro-gender movement.

Just the heart-felt, passionate self-defence of a disadvantaged, marginalized, vulnerable community (which just happens to have the country’s security and intelligence service, and the governing party, as allies).

Wish us luck.