Just so we are on the same page on what is being discussed, here is what I think is the complete relevant text of the advisory: [1]
> Some states have enacted laws and policies that may affect 2SLGBTQI+ persons. Check relevant state and local laws.
It also links to a general page with information about traveling outside Canada for such persons. [2]
To answer a question I had:
2S: 'Two-spirit is a modern, pan-Indian umbrella term used by some Indigenous North Americans to describe Native people in their communities who fulfill a traditional third-gender ceremonial and social role in their cultures.' [3]
While I understand the point of expanding the term to give representation, at this point it is a caricature. They tried so hard to look inclusive that the term become so unwieldy and obscure, nobody would use it except those who are so deep into it and those who want to mock it.
Also last time it was updated, there is an A in the term somewhere. Guess they dropped it or forgot it.
The A is generally for asexual and the reason to leave it out is because asexual people do not face the same kind of direct social discrimination of the other groups represented in the non-plus part of the acronym. That's why you don't see A in this official Canadian government communication, but you might find it in say, an online essay critiquing of a movie, where one might say, for example, that asexual, bi, gay, lesbian, queer, etc characters historically been somewhat underrepresented in media.
IMO, there's no need to be the same acronym every time - context matters, like most language. You can pull stuff out of the plus as required, or just as you feel like. It's no big deal. LGBTQ+ is standardized for most people in most cases, such as the headline of the post we're discussing, even though the actual Canadian government communication it's reporting on uses 2SLGBTQI+. We know they're both talking about the same general group of persons, but thinking "what the heck is 2S?" is a large part of Canada adding that, because they want you to learn about it. Ditto for the I. Take those two away and we're back to LGBTQ+ which I don't think is considered obscure or unwieldy. A bit of extra formality is generally to be expected from government documentation, I think.
This is a good point. The actual advisory amounts to "don't assume everything is the same as Canada, or that all states are the same".
Link [2] is far more general travel advice for these people, and talks about things not relevant to travel in the US but there isn't any suggestion differently.
Reads like some sort of parody to me. I+ was new to me too. "Intersexual" and the plus is inclusive of everyone that the previous letters don't cover. I guess there won't be more letters added then?
The I is intersex, not intersexual. It is a term for people who are born biologically with a mixture of male and female traits, through chromosomal abnormalities or otherwise. This is something like 1-2 percent of most human populations, which is relatively significant, but we rarely know about, talk about, or recognize those people, hence the inclusion.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for, and if you keep it up we're going to have to ban you.
(No, this is not because we don't like your views. We don't care or know what they are, and it would be just the same if you flipped the high bit on all of them.)
They do advise the travel risks of those type of countries for such persons in similarly plain language. I won't fill space here quoting the relevant passages, but you can click into these examples and ctrl-F.
A seems obvious for a number of reasons, starting with the fact that the US is supposedly a modern country, much like Canada and most of Europe. When it acts like an autocratic, undeveloped nation, people find that notable.
Is there some reason you think that we should spend more time talking about how non-Western countries treat gay people, than how the US does, especially in light of the number of Canadians who might visit one vs. the other? Or are you just trying to blame shift?
Why do you think anyone is implying that the safety concerns in those countries are comparable to the US, or that that matters in terms of advisories? Should Canada only warn its citizens of the single worst country, and pretend other concerns don’t exist? Should US citizens be proud that at least FL isn’t throwing the gays in prison?
I don’t understand why you think your questions have any meaning or value, aside from a sidestep into saying it’s actually ok to treat gay people really poorly as long as there’s someone else who treats them worse.
This would have taken you less time to Google that than it did to type the question in this public forum (the answer is very obviously 'yes', by the way).
Can I ask where you are seeing in this advisory, or the posted article, that Canada is stating or implying that the USA is unsafe for such persons? As far as I can tell, the current travel advice for USA is "Take normal security precautions" which is the lowest threat level in the Canadian travel advice system. [1] As far as I can tell, the advisory for USA just says to check local laws concerning such topics as pot, nudism, and sexuality as they vary by state, which as far as I know is just a fact that is relevant to traveling Canadians. I don't understand why this is controversial? I may be missing important context, which is why I am asking.
> USA is also unsafe for nudists in most places. Unsafe for people who smoke pot and unsafe for people who like to let their kids play outside unsupervised.
These are all activities you have a choice about participating in. Being LGBQIA+ is not a choice, and some of the laws are impacting women who haven't changed their gender (aka cis-gendered, but some folks tend to take umbrage with that term).
> This is really hypocritical of Canada to do (as a Canadian). Canada is home to our fair share of bigots, and while we may not pass laws criminalizing some LGBT behaviour, we shouldn’t throw stones if we live in a glass house
Its not “throwing stones”, its providing relevant guidance to travellers about potentially signfiicantly-personally-impactful legal differences they may face when travelling.
Government travel advisories aren’t generally intended as debating techniques or moral signalling, they are intended as tools to address the needs of citizens travelling abroad, because having people aware and prepared is more effective than having consular officials trying to help them out of messes they’ve gotten into by not being aware and prepared.
> Some states have enacted laws and policies that may affect 2SLGBTQI+ persons. Check relevant state and local laws.
It also links to a general page with information about traveling outside Canada for such persons. [2]
To answer a question I had:
2S: 'Two-spirit is a modern, pan-Indian umbrella term used by some Indigenous North Americans to describe Native people in their communities who fulfill a traditional third-gender ceremonial and social role in their cultures.' [3]
[1]: https://travel.gc.ca/destinations/united-states#laws
[2]: https://travel.gc.ca/travelling/health-safety/lgbt-travel
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit