You are currently browsing the monthly archive for July 2024.
Either you follow the evidence and the scientific method, or you do not. The hard sciences are a bastion of sorts against the bullshit that is running wild in the humanities. It isn’t for lack of trying on behalf of the activist bullshiters.
If you dare, go read the full article here.
In defending against activist ideology one must know the ground rules of the game. Queer activism is never enacted unambiguously. There is always a convenience, a double meaning, the truth married to a lie.
It behooves us to start with the original queer ‘scholarship’ and evaluate queer activism in light of what queer theory definitively says. So, to begin with, you need to know what “Queer” is. Logan Lancing defines the term in his book, “The Queering of the American Child” using a quote from the queer theorist David Halperin.
“Queer activists have transformed education’s purpose, methods, and content to push kids to become Queer Activists themselves. They have determined that the best way to do this is to teach the kids to queer themselves – to teach kids to destabilize their minds and bodies by deconstructing their identity until they become queer, which is a political cult identity that has nothing to do with sex, “gender”, or sexuality. In the words of world renowned [?] Queer Theorist David Halperin, “queer is an identity without an essence”. Whoa. In full context, he gives away the game: “queer” is a wholly political stance against normalcy and legitimacy and has little or nothing to do with homosexuality it self. He writes,
“Unlike gay identity, which, though deliberately proclaimed in an act of affirmation, is nonetheless rooted in a the positive fact of homosexual object-choice, queer identity need not be grounded in any positive truth or in any stable reality. As the very word implies, “queer” does not name some natural kind or refer to some determinate object; it acquires its meaning from its oppositional relation to the norm. Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without and essence. (Halperin 1995, p. 62, italics in original).”
Lancing, Lindsay (2024). The Queering of the American Child. New Discourses Publishing. (p. 25).
Dr.Haim took a stand and risked his family, career, and livelihood. His opposition to GAC and it’s lack of evidence should have been mirrored by medical professionals *everywhere*. Sadly, politics seem to have overwritten the notion of ‘first do no harm’ bit of ethical medical behaviour. Of course he is being sued by the government for telling the truth. Support Dr.Haim in his fight to stop the mutilation and life long medicalization of children.
‘My name is Eithan Haim. I am a 33-year-old general surgeon who was the anonymous whistleblower in a story released May 16, 2023 by Christopher Rufo. We exposed the fact that Texas Children’s Hospital – the largest children’s hospital in the world – was lying to the public about the existence of their transgender program. In part due to the story’s release, the very next day, the Texas Legislature voted, with bipartisan support, to ban transgender medical interventions on minors. The conduct we exposed became illegal in the State of Texas within 24 hours of our story.’
So, you’ve made up your mind to reject the idea that men – because gender-feelings – can become women. Here are some of the arguments put forth when gender activists aren’t trying to assassinate your character, insult, or coerce you. Dr. Hoenderkamp makes a useful list to guide your argumentation.
1. I had a conversation with a gay friend yesterday about the Trans debate and was reeling by the end of it. I wanted to address some of the commonly used arguments he used with confidence and which are often used;
2. “Trans women do not attack women in their spaces”.
Firstly there are no official figures to prove this because the police do not record biological sex, not because it doesn’t happen. There are lots of individual news reports. BUT its a moot argument because not all men are rapists but some are and we just don’t know who they will be so we solve that with protected spaces.
Firstly there are no official figures to prove this because the police do not record biological sex, not because it doesn’t happen. There are lots of individual news reports. BUT its a moot argument because not all men are rapists but some are and we just don’t know who they will be so we solve that with protected spaces.
3. “So you would force a woman to go in to the mens toilet?”
This is not a problem for women to solve. We are just defending ourselves and protecting women and girls. It is not our job to solve the issue that trans people face. Just those we face.
4. “Are you also worried about lesbians raping women then”
This is another silly argument. Lesbians dont have a penis and so CANNOT rape a woman and a lesbian is just a woman who is sexually attracted to another woman, not a woman claiming to be a different sex that perpetuates 91% of rapes and against women.
5. “this is the same argument as that was against homosexuality in the 70’s”.
NO. It isn’t. Gay people just wanted to be free to love someone of the same sex. They were not asking to infringe the rights of another massive (half the population) group in society. They were not asking to enter spaces protected for very good safeguarding reasons.
5a. They were not mutilating their bodies, cutting off healthy genitals, taking medications that left them with irreversible side effects such as infertility, osteoporosis cancer risk and encouraging our children to do this.
5b. They were not asking women to accept their entry into women’s sports categories and forcing them to share changing space with them in pursuit of that sport and then lose to a naturally bigger, stronger, faster opponent.
5c. They were not insisting on entering female prisons, often making the change from male to female after offending, often a rape offence where the victim is forced to refer to her male rapist as she.
5d. They were not insisting that language change so that the word woman is removed from services specifically aimed at women. That the language around activities that can only be done by women, breastfeeding, childbirth, pregnancy be changed to include men.
5e. They were not insisting that our very small children be taught about their contested gender ideology and their sexual preferences be defined and taught to them.
5f. In actual fact, the only way that this whole debate is similar to the homosexual debate is that Trans ideology IS homophobic. It is essentially the new conversion therapy; as gay children are convinced that they are not gay, just in the wrong body. I have been witness to this happening.
5g. It is so transphobic that it hates lesbians, it tells them they must accept women with penises as their partners. They insist that lesbians must accept men in their spaces, on their dating sites, in their organisations and bullies them to try and achieve it. SO, its the opposite of the homosexuality debate/section 28 times.
6. “Its just about being kind and inclusive’
It isn’t. It isn’t kind to women, or children. It isn’t inclusive, its actually excluding. If the trans ideology was any of those things they would listen and understand women and not insist that women ‘just be kind’.
7. “It is just affecting a tiny proportion of people”
It isn’t. It is affecting 51% of the population. Women. For whom trans men have no empathy, consideration of compassion.
9. I finished the conversation with:
“Do you actually believe that a man can fully become a woman”
and I got the answer YES. So here is the problem. This is like trying to debate that the earth is round with someone who insists it is flat. They are so wedded to a concept that IS false that the debate cannot progress until they let go of that false belief.
1. Communism is when depraved freaks make it illegal to be normal, and kill all the successful people.
2. Fascism is when normie dullards make it illegal to be weird, and kill all the bright and creative people.
The depraved freaks from #1 think they are the bright and creative people from #2.
They are not.
All those people gyrating half-naked in front of children at pride parades think they are Oscar Wilde, but they aren’t.
When societies become highly permissive, the productive weirdos, the ones who simply can’t fit in because they are creative in useful ways, become surrounded by, outnumbered by, a horde of cargo-cult imitators.
These people imagine themselves to be creative free spirits, because they compete to be as freaky as possible. They do not understand that freaky behavior is not creative talent… it is only a side effect of creative talent.
Often these people are defective and useless, which is why they seek to use freakiness to camouflage themselves as creative, hoping to hide their uselessness.
This progresses until normies get disgusted with them, and start thinking fascism might be a good idea.
Then they kill everyone. This wipes out all the depraved freaks from #1, but it also wipes out Oscar Wilde, Alan Turing, Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, Pablo Picasso, etc, as described in #2.
Because normie dullards can’t tell the difference, especially when their blood is up.
I understand why a lot of the right is educating itself about Wiemar Germany and re-examining fascism as a response to those conditions.
The impulse makes sense. Disgust is an entirely appropriate emotional response right now.
But they don’t understand that even if it has rational origins, fascism, like communism, is a process that spirals out of control.
Fascism isn’t just an expression of disgust. It is an ever-increasing hypersensitivity to disgust, created by a social and cultural echo chamber. Once it eliminates the original objects of disgust, it moves on to find more mildly disgusting things to target.
Eventually, any deviation from the norm, however trivial and harmless, becomes an object of disgust to be eradicated.
It begins with getting rid of Harvey Weinstein… but it progresses to getting rid of Richard Feynman and Elon Musk.
That sentence may sound strange to you. Feynman? Musk? Really?
But remember that the Gay Race Communism that now become the state religion of the political class progressed the same way. Barack Obama, the 2008 presidential candidate, was against state recognition of homosexual marriages. At the time, that was too much, too far.
Things progressed.
Slopes really are slippery. It isn’t a fallacy at all. The whole reason we characterize things as slopes is that a slope is a thing people tend to fall down. We notice things lead to other things, because the Overton window shifts, and we correctly characterize certain metaphorical terrain as a “slope”.
And just as the political class, Hollywood, and their pet idiots in NYC and LA spiraled into Gay Race Communism, the Middle American normal person backlash carries the risk of spiraling the opposite way.
Remember that fascist societies aren’t actually perfectly healthy cultures that suddenly, for no reason at all, get destroyed by their neighbors. What they do is they attack everyone they can see, once their disgust threshold becomes so low that every other type of society appears to them as nothing but a plague vector that must be wiped out.
So their neighbors are forced to destroy them in self-defense.
We, as a society, are currently in danger of both communism and fascism.
The risk of communism is that it’s what we will get if we do not purge the political class. The risk of fascism is that it’s what we will get if that purge spirals out of control.
Everyone reading this already understands that communism is the worst thing in the known universe… because anyone who doesn’t understand that has muted/blocked/unfollowed me long ago.
But we also need to understand the dangers of our own response.
If we do not use and focus our disgust, we are doomed to a communist future. But we must make that disgust our servant, not our master.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…