2SLGBTQQIA – Why Not Just Say Peeps?

A report from Canada about missing indigenous women. Which contains this that I’ve not seen before: 2SLGBTQQIA. Which does rather beg the question, what the heck’s that about? Eh?

The background is that there is concern over the number of First Nations, indigenous, women who have disappeared. The number does indeed seem large:

While the number of Indigenous women who have gone missing is estimated to exceed 4,000, the report admits that no firm numbers can ever be established.

4,000? Why, that’s umm, that’s many thousands. We do though need to ponder whether it’s disproportionate.

The First Nations population is about 1.7 million. This 4,000 is over 30 years, so we’re talking about a 0.0066% disappearance rate each year.

The population of Canada is 37 million, there are 31,000 disappearances of adults each year. That’s a lot misleading as that’s reported disappearances, not findings. Looks like about 10% remain as unknown cause. So, take that as the number who aren’t found. Perhaps not accurate but also perhaps the best we’re going to get. So that’s 3,100 a year in 37 million, 0.0083%.

Anyone with better numbers please do present them but so far we’ve not got anything which says that the indigenous disappearance rate is anything out of the ordinary. And we’d not start to describe this as genocide, as the report itself does.

But what sparked the interest here was this:


And what’s that when at home?

2SLGBTQQIA (two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, queer, questioning, intersex and asexual)

Err, yes. Nice word salad there. The thing is though our basic contention here is that all of these different types of people are in fact people. Our entire insistence is that they’ve the same rights as everyone else to life, the pursuit of happiness and all that – yes, I know, that’s Yankee, not Canuck. The oppression being complained about is that people aren’t gaining the rights of people. So, why use the 10 alphanumeric acronym, why not just call them people? Or, if we’ve got to have some neologism, peeps?

Peeps have rights, isn’t it terrible that peeps are being denied their rights? Yep, indeed it is. All peeps morally do have the same rights therefore all peeps should have those same rights. There, we’re done aren’t we?

Leave a Reply

4 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
Millard J MelnyknoggrCallum GrimmerBniCQuentin Vole Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Quentin Vole
Quentin Vole

But that won’t fulfil their virtue signalling quote.


General rates will be skewed by metro area figures, lot of missing women outside metro areas so comparative to rural rate would be different.
2S is just First Nations term (2 spirit) signifying someone has other interests than heteronormativity, if putting at the front was making a point about it being a First Nation issue then most probably didn’t need the rest

Callum Grimmer
Callum Grimmer

Since you called for better numbers:

1) Disappearances are indigenous women. You compared this against the entire indigenous population. This is very irresponsible statistics.

2) ‘Unknown Cause’ is not a good proxy for ‘Not Found’. Your call for better numbers implies you’re aware of this, but decided to post your conclusions anyway. Perhaps the people with better data would be the national inquiry.


I noticed that as well, this correction about doubles the rate to some 0.013%, which is about 60% more than the all-Canadian rate. However: 1. The all-Canadian rate is not the same as non-indigenous women rate, and only this would be the correct comparison; AFAIK, women become murder victims more often then men, generally. 2. Most of the Indigenous people “live in poverty in remote areas,” this naturally influences the disappearance rate. 3. The report states that this (not really far from average) rate proves that a racially based genocide was happening. But, who (or what) caused those deaths in… Read more »

Millard J Melnyk
Millard J Melnyk

“Why Not Just Say Peeps?” Well, aren’t white, supremacist Canucks also “peeps”? So, when the peeps referred to are not the peeps who target other peeps for demonization, hatred, spite, etc., but the peeps being so targeted, it pays to be specific and clear. I’d expect an editor to know that. So, when referring specifically to two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, queer, questioning, intersex or asexual peeps — not the peeps who terrorize those peeps — acronyms like 2SLGBTQQIA are both unambiguous and handy. I’d expect an editor to know that. But of course, you do know that, and terminological… Read more »