August 4, 2020
25 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Questionable Motives
-
-
tildeb
- Where are we now?
- What is this ‘Woke’ movement and what does it have to do with me?
- Is censoring reality to support a BLM narrative causing real harm to real people in real life?
- Social construct? Too perceptive not to post
- What is today’s social justice movement and where does it come from?
- Is the Woke movement racist?
- Is the Trump Administration the First Postmodern American Regime?
- Why is Critical Social Justice theory the Covid-19 of liberal democracies?
- Female Erasure: the sustained attack against women’s sex-based rights and freedoms
- Look how ‘fringe’ Valerie Terico has become!
-
Recent Comments
tildeb on What is this ‘Woke… Forestwood on What is this ‘Woke… ParentingIsFunny on Where are we now? tildeb on Where are we now? ParentingIsFunny on Where are we now? Site Meter
-
-
-
Questionable Motives 
Great find tildeb. Solid gold. Loved the ‘transition’ to ‘age’ theory. Why not?
After all, once the road to perdition is accepted as happy miles, a man can marry his horse too.
Not sure how anybody of sane mind can fault any point made in the vid. Truly how low has mankind sunk that we are even having this discussion.
Btw, can u imagine the artist repeating this? Some serious memory work there. That’s about the only ‘rap’ music that was not annoying.
Comment by ColorStorm — August 4, 2020 @ 1:44 pm |
There is a level of idiocy unmatched in this ‘progressive’ movement. What I don’t get is how the ideology – one in regards to socially constructed gender that directly contradicts why lesbian and gay biologically based sexual attraction to the same sex shouldn’t be held as equivalently ‘fluid’ and on a ‘spectrum’ – is, nevertheless, often supported by the same advocates! Who said you couldn’t hold two contradictory ideas in the mind at the same time? Obviously, this is a skill set I seem to be lacking.
Comment by tildeb — August 4, 2020 @ 1:57 pm |
A very edgy, racy, provocative music-video production and lyrics and more so that you’ve posted it onto your blog. Then again, as long as I’ve known you on WordPress Tildeb, you have never minced words about your position on social issues… or ANY issues really! 😄
On Mr. Aaron’s YouTube Channel of this video he states (emphasis mine):
Hahaha… “biology cannot be overthrown.” What an incredibly broad, general, ambiguous statement to make without elaborating at all on exactly the vast differences between biology and social constructs. The latter involves so much neurology and psychology, and both undeniably involve more sophisticated biological-neurological hormones in the human endocrine system… which undeniably influence the human brain. And the psychology involved in all this “biology”? That is as endlessly diverse as ONE Mob-Herd Mentality (family) as 1-million or more individual Mobs-Herds around the world.
And that’s why your above comment to CS is so spot-on!
Exactly! And that’s what Mr. Aaron is doing with his above statement and transgendered rap-song and lyrics: two contradictory ideas simultaneously. Riddle those two if you can. 😆 I do like the fact that he exposes social constructs for what they really are: degrees of imperfection! Nothing more.
I am going to closeout my comment with this biology and all its interconnected sub-disciplines from the ISNA… “How common are intersexed births?”
Births with:
• Not XX and not XY one in 1,666 births
• Klinefelter (XXY) one in 1,000 births
• Androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 13,000 births
• Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 130,000 births
• Classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia one in 13,000 births
• Late onset adrenal hyperplasia one in 66 individuals
• Vaginal agenesis one in 6,000 births
• Ovotestes one in 83,000 births
• Idiopathic (no discernable medical cause) one in 110,000 births
• Iatrogenic (caused by medical treatment, for instance progestin administered to pregnant mother) – no estimate*
• 5 alpha reductase deficiency – no estimate*
• Mixed gonadal dysgenesis – no estimate*
• Complete gonadal dysgenesis one in 150,000 births
• Hypospadias (urethral opening in perineum or along penile shaft) one in 2,000 births
• Hypospadias (urethral opening between corona and tip of glans penis) one in 770 births
Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female one in 100 births
Total number of people receiving surgery to “normalize” genital appearance one or two in 1,000 births
* – Very difficult to measure due to social abuse, discrimination, ostracizing, and hate-behavior from “normal” (binary?) society
Link to ISNA data: https://isna.org/faq/frequency/
Comment by Professor Taboo — August 4, 2020 @ 5:28 pm |
Because of the level of disinformation available on the web, you cannot simply quote such statistics and presume they are put into context. For example, nearly as many boys are born with 46, XY DSD as those listed as ‘Intersex’, meaning a testicular abnormality is being reported as “ambiguous” sex… as if ambiguity at birth of a secondary sex organ trumps a primary sex. Even given these numbers, prof, when something is 99.96% divided into two very distinct bell curves, it is not being accurate to claim the tiny outlying over lap is properly or accurately considered making the two humped camel into a one humped ‘spectrum’. That’s the lie, and so facts like the raw numbers listed out of context is an intentional attempt to pretend reality in sex is not binary. It is.
Comment by tildeb — August 4, 2020 @ 5:51 pm |
Never ever any exceptions? 🤔 Two questions for you Tildeb, please…
#1 — What is your definition of binary and binary sexuality?
#2 — If an infant is born with 5-Alpha Reductase Deficiency Type 2, what gender would you label the newborn?
Comment by Professor Taboo — August 4, 2020 @ 7:32 pm
Remember, prof, we’re not just talking about humans. Sex is a standard biological category dividing almost all critters that are sexually dimorphic. There are physical primary traits at birth and secondary traits that emerge at puberty associated with each category. To pretend these categories are ‘constructed’ just for humans but not beyond, just the body and not the brain, is denying reality.
Comment by tildeb — August 5, 2020 @ 12:14 pm
“A common objection that crops up here are congenital development conditions. The existence of so-called intersex conditions is often seen as an ontological threat to our understanding of sex rather than an epistemological problem. That is, there is a claim that such congenital conditions lead to a need to redefine what a sex is and its characterisation (often expressed as “sex is a spectrum”). Instead it is a medical/biological problem of knowing what sex someone (or a butterfly) is when the usual secondary sex characteristics may be ambiguously formed. No peer reviewed biology paper has ever attempted to characterise sex as some sort of spectrum of possibilities despite absolute convictions about the matter from ideological positions.
The purpose of such arguments presented here in The Skeptic magazine is for us to be convinced that sex is arbitrary and not objectively knowable and to abandon objective attempts to define terms like male, female, man and woman. It is a textbook example of postmodernist denialism of science, reason and objectivity, using sleight of hand to undermine understanding. Such arguments are now so common and fashionable, even among those educated in medicine and biology, that recently the Endocrine Society in the US felt it needed to publish a position statement on the fact that sex is real, binary and immutable, and that recording sex accurately was vital in healthcare and research as we should not conflate sex and gender.” (From Andy Lewis in the Quackometer: this argument about a spectrum across biological sex demonstrates confusion between ontology and epistemology because sex is biologically binary. Full Stop.)
Comment by tildeb — April 11, 2021 @ 2:28 pm |
I’ve already called these conditions “outliers.” The presence of outliers does not negate the almost unanimous binary condition of sex into which almost every single human is born. In other words, the rare person who is born not into one of these two primary sex-based conditions does not a “spectrum” make, does not a ‘fluidity’ create. They remain the rare outlier. Shit happens.
As for 5-Alpha Reductase Deficiency Type 2, again – an extremely rare condition – the primary sex is STILL male. Don’t confuse secondary with primary sex. That’s what the gender identity proponents WANT you to do, to rely on confused language and warped meaning and poor understanding, and they do so to try to make reality fit the ideology by suggesting doing so is virtuous and to not do so bigoted. It’s bullshit.
By trying to make a rule of sex-based spectrum and fluidity that simply is not reflected in reality by almost every single human being because of these statistical outliers is no different than pretending the tail is wagging the dog. It is neither reflective nor descriptive of reality. Sex in reality is binary… not because I say so but because one or the other sex is almost a universal inherited feature of humans. Almost, but not quite, divided into these two categories. So making laws that demand everyone PRETEND the tail and dog equivalently wag each in order to feel virtuous and open-minded, that the binary sex categories of almost every human being is on a spectrum and is actually fluid day to day, hour by hour, minute by minute, is the very idiocy I am claiming infects this kind of identity thinking. The video uses the same language to argue it is hate speech to recognize real life age should anyone wish to claim the same ‘fluidity’ and ‘spectrum’ and the ‘social construct’ in this metric. It’s simply not true that sex is a spectrum; it is almost unanimously either male or female and this directly affects real life biology and real life physiological and real life neurological development.
To pretend this binary sex-based biological development stops at the neck because, hey, what about this outlier here and that outlier there and – oh, by the way – we really MUST include fluidity because of this ‘spectrum’ we say must exist because of them, is the kind of thinking used to deny any aspect of reality for which there is an overwhelming preponderance of clear evidence that conflicts with an imported ideology. This runs across religious belief to climate change denialism to anti-vaxers. This method of thinking is an excuse to deny reality in the name of something else, in the name of NOT being a bigot or a hater, and feel virtuous about doing so. Denying reality for such reasons is idiocy.
Comment by tildeb — August 4, 2020 @ 8:40 pm |
I did not know you had replied to my question(s) Tildeb… for obvious reasons, this wasn’t directly under my 2nd comment. So… I am very late here. 🙂
I am going to take more time to reread your two replies here, analyze your points/suggestions, and TRY to approach your point-of-view or argument against mine, with as much objectivity as I can muster—as imperfect as that will be as one Homo sapien. 😉
However, I think what I am TRYING to communicate (poorly) is that there is rarely such a thing as 100% this or 100% certainty within a hierarchical biological classification at any given time, past, present, or future… especially if one adheres to scientific evolution of species/living entities. If there is just ONE exception to the rule, then it follows there is an/are exception(s) to what once was an inflexible, yet wrong, rule. If there becomes more than one exception—i.e. 5%, 8%—then it can be said there are degrees of NON-binary or NON-black-or-white realities. Yes, there are always “majorities” in many aspects of social, biological, or political classifications, BUT those “exceptions” may not be fully understood at any one time… until further, closer examination (usually) by those who ask “Why is there only A or B… all the time for all of eternity when there are exceptions and vast diversity?”
What I guess I’m trying to say is that why does there only have to be just two sexual genders or two sexual-orientations? Are there not (fluid) degrees of variations? Some very subtle, some very noticeable, significant, UNconventional? And everything in between? And does not change take place every day, month, year, decade, etc, like evolution adequately demonstrates?
With due respect Tildeb, I’m asking truly to understand this better, not so much to tell you you are wrong and must correct/realign your posture. 🙂
Comment by Professor Taboo — August 15, 2020 @ 3:54 am |
This 100% demand by proponents of a sex-based ‘spectrum’ arguing against a binary system because of rare exceptions reminds me of the creationist demand for 100% certainty for evolutionary biology to account for all common ancestor possibilities… or therefore creationism is an ‘equivalent’ scientific claim. Umm, no.
Admittedly, reality shows us that there really are very rare outliers when it comes to sex-based primary characteristics. But they are outliers because they exist in an otherwise very distinct binary reality. There really is a cow and a bull and not a ‘spectrum’ of bovine sex-based primary characteristics even if an abnormality in a primary sex characteristic can be found. The same is true for humans. Your primary sex is established as either/or by your biology in almost every case. The evidence for that is absolutely overwhelming. And this accurate reflection of reality is not open to a faith-based belief about a magical spectrum due to rare outliers any more than a lack of 100% certainty in every case on the evolutionary tree opens the door to magical POOF!-ism.
Comment by tildeb — August 15, 2020 @ 7:45 am
I think, Prof, you are confusing primary sex characteristics your biology produces with gender assignment and secondary alterable characteristics and arousal preferences. This is why the language is important, and why it requires a dishonest word game by transactivists to try to reverse reality and magically POOF! a spectrum for binary primary sex based characteristics into being, POOF! this spectrum into a biological reality, and POOF! primary sex characteristics into a social construction. This is exactly backwards.
Inverting reality by this word game does not work to alter reality. It just promotes an anti-reality ideology as reality’s replacement and insists that criticizing it on merit is bigotry. That’s what makes this kind of transactivism deplorable and its promotion very dangerous to vulnerable people… not least of whom are astronomical increases in young women suffering from sudden onset gender dysphoria and urged by transactivists (and public health services and Colleges that go along with this disreputable charade to avoid being called promoters of bigotry) to begin physical and chemical transformation of their secondary sex-based characteristics. This is perverted.
Comment by tildeb — August 15, 2020 @ 7:59 am
Thank you Tildeb for your further elaborations. Give me some time to reread these additional comments and process/reprocess their content. I will return in an unspecified time to reply.
Until then… cheers Sir. 🙂
Comment by Professor Taboo — August 16, 2020 @ 5:57 pm
Apologies to tildeb for the encroachment, but it seeks you are trying really hard to perform unnecessary circus acts or sleight of hand to ignore the age old signs on the bathroom door which any 4yr old understands; he understands because it is naturally obvious: MALE or FEMALE- choose your door.
Man or woman, choose your door. But you are asking that the world accept your aberrations as ‘natural.’ I for one will not, cannot, and most people agree but may be afraid to challenge the loudmouths with microphones.
IMO, the loudness only magnifies the zaniness. And no, I don’t need ‘science’ to declare what people have known for millennia.
Comment by ColorStorm — August 15, 2020 @ 12:24 pm
Sorry ColonStorm. As far as I am concerned, this discussion is between Tildeb and I… not for you, ESPECIALLY since you and I have adequate history regarding your useless comments everywhere else on WordPress. Therefore, I am not even going to glance at, much less read the first word of your…
…non-sense.
Move along. Return to your kitty litter please. I am much more interested in what Tildeb has to say and never in anything you have to say. Bye bye. 👋
Comment by Professor Taboo — August 16, 2020 @ 1:07 pm
Cheers, as always. Rest assured that I respect that individuals are equal in the sames rights and freedoms I have, that they can claim to be whatever gender they wish, practice sexual proclivities they find enamoring (as long as no victims are created) and can live whatever lives they choose in their pursuit of happiness. It’s not my business nor subject to my judgement. I try to treat people as the individuals they are and I strive to do so based on their character and no by any other metric. But I will not replace reality in the name of some ideology that refuses to allow it to arbitrate its claims. Sex is one such matter and no ideology can replace its biological role in our development.
Comment by tildeb — August 16, 2020 @ 7:45 pm |
Tildeb, I very much like THIS part of your comment Sir. 🙂
This is very well stated. Bravo. 👏🏼
Comment by Professor Taboo — August 18, 2020 @ 1:03 am |
Tildeb, just some of my initial thoughts these past days about all this.
Personally, as I’m sure you’ve deduced here, 😄 I find the subject of binaryism within gender-labels exceedingly frustrating. Why? Because biology, neurohormonal theory, genetics and genomics, and polygenetics with epigenetics are not always so cut-n-dry or oversimplified, especially if we lock and imprison ourselves in a tiny cage with ONLY two doors: A or B, and hastily throw away the key forever. Personally, I say this with sufficient confidence based upon my own general and limited studies (as a non-professional Apprentice of course) of gender ambiguity and sexual expression.
As a first example, regarding the earliest development of our brain, on the embryologic level EVERYONE, every single human being’s brain starts out as female; for every single embryo on this planet, female is essentially the default setting. Therefore, forcing a societal binary-genderism onto the zygote-to-fetus phase—certainly for those first 14-18 days after fertilization and the following 3-weeks of development—is simply not correct embryology. Yes, for the very first 5-weeks EVERYBODY is one gender: Unisex! Somewhere in those first several weeks varying degrees of “masculinity” will begin to develop… or not. This is verified embryology.
A second example is the mere undeniable fact that there is (and always has been?) a third gender. Like it or not, human Hermaphrodites exist. Therefore, if three genders exist, no matter the statistics or numbers, is THAT life-condition strictly binary? Or should it be correctly defined (today) as Ternary, or Ternarism? 😉
I am still seriously considering all of this topic, including all your points. I might return in a few days to comment further. We’ll see. Nonetheless, thank you kindly again for this intriguing discussion Sir. Be safe and be well! ❤️
Comment by Professor Taboo — August 18, 2020 @ 6:26 pm |
Now revisit your thoughts using the meaning of the following terms:
Sex: refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. It is primarily associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy.
Gender: refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people.
Regarding sex, one of two kinds are almost always found: male and female. There are outliers here, where the XX or XY chromosomes are slightly altered. A sleight alteration does not a ‘spectrum’ make. If plotted on a chart, a spectrum looks like a single hump; when plotted on a chart, sex appears without question as two. There is a very sleight overlap and this overlap indicates not a spectrum by definition but outliers from the two almost separate norms, the two humps almost complete humps. And I say this because it’s not an ‘opinion’ or a ‘belief’ or a ‘bias’ or a ‘preference’. It’s a biological reality. Biological sex is a binary a system categorization, with very few outliers. To argue this biologically deduced categorization is just a ‘social construction’ because … outliers… is an incredible distortion of what is true, what is real. And beyond question, the chromosomes for sex really do deeply affect in so many ways pre- AND post-natal biological development that cannot be reversed, anymore than one can reverse surgically changing a heart into a third kidney while claiming blood circulation is ‘just’ a social construction. It’s beyond ridiculous.
Regarding gender, of course these roles are wide open to all kinds of changes over time for all kinds of reasons independent of biology. Mind you, gender tends to align with sex even if expressed quite differently in different cultures; there is still the binary aspect to it but applied widely. What meaning we attach to gender also changes over time, which indicates this meaning is not biological but one step removed. I say that because the current argument that gender is the biological fact is even more ridiculous than proposing sex is social. I say that because the evidence is also overwhelming that what gender means is dependent on factors that are not biologically developed, such as culture, such as time, such as various states of technological development, and social class. We can find immediate examples in any diverse population comparison, but we also will find close ties between these various gender expressions and a binary sex category within the social framework. Behaving outside these norms will always include some version of social disrepute, and this should be expected because of the social importance (as well as comfort and standing) these roles play in human interaction. Whether or not this disrepute is justified or even reasonable is not the issue here; the issue here is to understand that sex is a binary biological category with very few outliers while gender – even expressed in hundreds of different ways – is still usually associated with sex. That’s the reality.
Comment by tildeb — August 18, 2020 @ 8:13 pm |
Oh, and to be clear, I refer to sex as male/female and gender with terms like men and women. I will use whatever pronouns people prefer to use to describe their gender but this does not alter their biological sex in any way.
Comment by tildeb — August 18, 2020 @ 8:38 pm
🤔 Hmmm, now THIS comment-reply Tildeb resonates more cohesively to me than many/most others who “try” to explain their gender-preferences or a Binary-genderism. Thank you.
After breaking down definitions of Sex then Gender (in the opening), I think you might have hit a metaphorical light-bulb with me with this (emphasis mine):
That (the two emphases) are what I find maniacally frustrating with discussing gender ambiguity AND sexual-orientations and behavior which does evolve/change over time with many people/couples or groups (as in polyamory). Regarding that 2nd emphasis above in your reply, instead of the word “widely” would you also use the word liberally?
I ask (I guess?) to possibly differentiate my extrapolation of the word binary which I find overly repressive and restrictive—like when you go into a Baskin Robbins Ice Cream shop, known to always have 31 various flavors of ice cream, but suddenly all they offer to customers are Vanilla or Chocolate, nothing else—from a more DIVERSE sexuality NOT confined to either A or B. Does that make sense?
I guess I’m also saying that I am not in the least bit hung-up about gender and sexual-orientation or expression. I could care less what people do privately. But I don’t see the benefit of socially or legally forcing anyone into one single paradigm (Monism/God) or even Binarism either. To me that feels like, seems like something for Pre-K students and their particular development AT THAT SPECIFIC time-frame in their mental, physical, emotional growth.
Do I have a hang-up with conventionalism? Yeah, most likely. 😉
Comment by Professor Taboo — August 18, 2020 @ 10:57 pm
I used the term ‘widely’ to say that gender is expressed in all kinds of ways… but… there is still a very strong correlation between gender expressions and sex . In other words, in any one, say, culture you will usually find ‘typical’ gender expression for males and ‘typical’ gender expressions for females… but when you compare any two cultures, these expressions may differ quite a lot; in other words, widely.
In more liberal societies, I suspect you will find much more liberal and differing expression of gender. In other words, I think gender expression is becoming less and less correlated to sex and much more interchangeable for social status. Does that clarify?
As for conformity, I think tolerance in societies that have individual rights and freedoms seems to grow and recede in waves… always testing the local boundaries almost in a frozen state of social adolescence. Now, however, is a new time, in that conformity has less to do with appearances (to whatever group identity it may be) and much more to do with ideology. I keep encountering a growing intolerance for tolerance and a fading respect of these shared basic rights and freedoms unless associated with a victimized group… and, even more concerning, a growing practice of self-censoring social criticism and commentary about anything outside of the One True ideological victim framework. It’s hard work being completely different in order to fit in, so any marginalized identity is the one of choice! Don’t forget the unique tattoos and fishing tackle for the face. And – trigger warning – there are only so many to go around that we get social competition for status by being the most pathetic whining dysfunctional emotionally retarded virtue championing loser imaginable. And there’s lots of hurt-feelings competition for that status these days! So new victim groups are being formed… like the transgender activists trying valiantly and with much success to alter reality to cast them as both chronic champions and victims at the same time. It’s quite the feat!
Comment by tildeb — August 18, 2020 @ 11:37 pm
This sleight of hand regarding sex and gender to ‘correctly’ align with Woke ideology is explained very well here on the Quackometer, a website dedicated to discussing various pseudoscientific nonsense… in this case the ‘capture’ of the science journal Nature by the Woke. It explains the typical and widely used fallacious four-step Woke argument in this way:
“In 2015, Claire Ainsworth published an article “Sex Redefined – The idea of two sexes is simplistic. Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that.” It is an exemplar of the ideological and denialist approach to sex.
The Ainsworth article goes along the well established specious set of arguments you will find in ‘gender studies’- it seeks to undermine our ability to talk about sex. That approach goes like this:
1. Say you are going to give the ‘old fashioned’ definition of sex but actually set up a straw man. Instead of discussing how biologists define the sex of an organism in terms of the evolved development path it follows with respect to either gamete type (male or female), claim sex is a set of ‘sex characteristics’ like genitals, breasts and things like facial hair. Stick to humans.
2. Note how sex characteristics vary enormously between individuals and many overlap between what we call sexes. There is no clear dividing line, for example, in bone morphology in humans for example. Therefore, there is no clear diving line between the sexes.
3. Set up another false straw man of how karytypes are synonymous with sexes — that is XX/XY are defining of female and male rather than being one type of sex determining mechanism. Note how sex chromosomal aneuploidies mean sex cannot be binary. This is false and conflates atypical chromosome numbers with sexes.
4. Come to the conclusion that sex is too vague, subjective and unreliable a concept to classify humans. Suggest, as Claire Ainsworth adds in her article payload, that we just ‘ask people’. That is their ‘identity’ is the only thing we can rely on.
Sound about right, Prof?
Why is this such a problem? Because it directly and adversely affects the proper study of differences between the sexes not only throughout all of biology (Yes, Virginia, there really are sex-based physiological differences between them) but specifically in important – even vital – differences between male and female humans.
Like the efficacy of medication. Like immune responses. Like pain levels. Like determining actual physiological risks to various conditions. Like diagnosing developmental issues. No one is affected more by this than women, than effectively and progressivley addressing the historical bias against women in all areas of human interaction including shared rights and freedoms, business, government, law, equality access, sports, services, and most especially the study and addressing of women’s health. All of this will be thrown out as ‘incorrect’ ideology when we go along with this Woke ideology that men and women are fundamentally the same and so no further action in practice or policy should be considered necessary when it assumes no differences in fact… other than gender identity. Reality dictates this ideological claim is not true in fact. Yet here we are…
Comment by tildeb — September 4, 2020 @ 11:21 am |
Here’s a first hand account by someone who transitioned and says, “I wasn’t “born in the wrong body.” I was born female. But I didn’t like it. So I changed my appearance, at significant monetary, psychological, and physical cost, with plastic surgery and hormones. My sex never changed, though. Only my appearance changed.” What he talks about and heavily criticizes is this widespread acceptance that gender dysphoria is behind the trans movement rather than what’s true: the transactivist movement is behind the gender dysphoria diagnosis. And so the author discusses the realities and long term adverse health effects transitioning causes, his parenting advice for the parents of questioning children, and outlines some of the tremendous danger to real people – often vulnerable parents – in real life that this transactivist movement is promoting… without revealing what’s true: either the medical unknowns that accompany intervention – especially chemical intervention for teens – or the long term ordeal that comes with transitioning. He argues that such a life-altering, lifelong decision is a decision that he thinks only adults should be able to make for themselves. Not children. Not schools. Not parents. Not transactivists. Adults.
Comment by tildeb — October 15, 2020 @ 8:09 am |
“But there is a victim here—the public. A network of activists and their journalistic enablers have largely succeeded in suppressing a real discussion of the over-diagnosis of gender dysphoria among vulnerable girls. As you read this, there are parents everywhere being lectured to by authority figures about how they have to affirm their daughter’s sudden interest in becoming a boy—no questions asked. From Amazon to I Am Jazz, everyone is telling them that transition is the path to happiness, and those who question this narrative are bigots. So they stare at their shoes and let the conversion therapy take its toll.
This is what censorship looks like in 21st-century America. It isn’t the government sending police to your home. It’s Silicon Valley oligopolists implementing blackouts and appeasing social-justice mobs, while sending disfavored ideas down memory holes. And the forces of censorship are winning. Not only because their efforts to censor leave almost no trace. They are winning because, thus far, most Americans have been content to surrender virtually every liberty in exchange for the luxury of having products delivered to their door. Most would happily submit to the rule of Big Tech, so long as their Netflix isn’t disrupted.
At some point, it will cross each of our minds to question an item on the ever-growing list of unsayables. We will find ourselves smeared, or blocked, or the target of a woke campaign. And we will look for support from those with only a dim recollection of why they once cared about free speech. Those who will note tyranny’s advance with the pitiless smile of a low-level bureaucrat already anticipating the door-delivered Cherry Garcia and hours of uninterrupted streaming: “You brought this on yourself, didn’t you?” From Abigail Shrier’s Quillette article, author of Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters. Her Joe Rogan interview can be found here. This widespread response is censorship, plain and simple, against anyone presenting reality for our consideration. There is no other correct term for it.
Comment by tildeb — November 12, 2020 @ 9:30 am |
binary options
301 Moved Permanently
Trackback by binary options — August 6, 2021 @ 6:08 am |