I mean, the reason why there is more focus on women’s issues, and racialized issues, etc, is that women have been under-represented in the past, so that’s why there’s more of a focus on them. That’s not to say that men don’t have issue either, but groups who have been under-represented are now getting their representation, etc. Does that mean men don’t have issues too? No, of course not.
So, two comments on this one -- First, is that with studies focusing on a narrow/reduced scope, targeting for example just the issues facing women in the TFW system in agricultural areas, and dedicating resources to women's issues on that front without even assessing whether it's a genderized issue or one that impacts everyone regardless of gender, government systems have, at the very least the impression, that they've over-corrected for a problem that they are now refusing to measure. Wronging men by ignoring them, because women were ignored generations ago, is not a good path forward. Second, many of the forms of "equity" programs in Canada -- such as 'equity employment group' hiring preferences amongst the federal government, which impede 'white men' exclusively due to how we define an 'equity employment group' -- are implemented without a condition for when the additional supports/"reverse discrimination for equity sake!" will be 'complete'/done. Like the public sector split was at parity in 2000, give or take. It's now more lopsided in favour of women, than it was in the 1980s towards men when legislation was put in to 'even things out'. We still have preferential hiring for women, and it's been a full generation / ~30 years, with the scales tipping more and more in an inequitable way -- but most progressives don't care, as it's just men gettin hosed.
So you are saying, with most online and phone interviews, that the results will essentially be wrong because most people will just answer with that they believe is the “right” answer, rather than what they actually think?
Yes/no. I'd put it more like Surveys on certain topics / socially "hot" items, are less reflective of reality ever since the advent of the internet, basically. Influencers and social media sites don't sell advertising, so much as they sell the ability to skew the conversation / slant things to their preference, by inundating people with spam/propaganda. For years, Canada and the USA's media channels were aggressively in favour of left-wing ideas, so much so, and for so long, that many people just went along with it. Even more, online campaigns can be heavily skewed by bots/malicious agents. Realistically, I think it's a better gauge to look at people's actual behaviours as data points for this sort of thing -- particularly when the subject actually impacts their lives. Like people started protesting drag story times, as you noted, a few years back -- but could they have protested them even sooner? Not really, as they didn't start popping up until ~2015ish -- at the height of things like Trudeau's virtue signalling politics. Prior to that, they were fine saying "Yeah, sure, I support trans people doing whatever", but then it impacted their day to day more / their kids, and suddenly a slice of them took action. Virtue signalling does not reflect reality, nor does it sway opinion given how flimsy those signals generally are.
There’s sexual connotations with drag?
Contrary to what lots of people on here often seem to think, I'm a fairly staunch moderate/green party sort. I've happily gone to drag shows with friends, and feel I have a pretty good grasp of it. I'd wager I've had more exposure to the community than most. I'd say feigning that it doesn't have sexual connotations, is like saying a furry is just a person in a costume, no sexual connotations there! Yiff away!