You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Debate’ category.
Check out the rest of Peter Boghossian’s Channel for more demonstrations of how ‘woke-reasoning’ works.
The “Agree” participants in this debate are a case in point for what the gender ideology brainwashing does to your ability to make a coherent reasonable decision based on facts. What they do demonstrate is a new word, let’s take a look:
Bigoterring is precisely what is going on here in the later half of the video. Because gender ideology has no arguments other than hurt feelings and class antagonisms biogterring is almost always the card they play.
Pay particular attention when it comes to the part when Peter asks the Agree crowd to define their terms. Spoiler alert: They do not. Instead, they substitute personal attacks and bluster for arguments. It’s chilling to see supposedly educated adults engaging in such ruthless anti-intellectual behaviour.
Expect this though when you make a stand (and you must make a stand otherwise these confabulators win) for freedom of thought and freedom of speech in our society.
This is what we are going up against. The primacy of stand-point epistemology(1) versus the common reality we all share is huge barrier to overcome as any sort of argument of discussion can be had. I think this is the situation that we have to prepare for when dealing with people who have been knowingly or unknowingly indoctrinated into a Critical Theory (2) mind-set.
The ‘social workers’ failed on every level to even engage in a substantive dialogue with Peter Boghossian. What was demonstrated in their failure to engage with Dr.Boghossian was an unwillingness to think outside their ideological box – they had the right answers – just count how many times the words “triggered” was used. These are proto-professionals who cannot engage with ideas that do not match their own. It’s completely fucking scary.
(1) – In summary, standpoint epistemology (and related identity-based epistemologies) are a complicated and widely discredited way to create and justify a kind of gnosticism around critical conceptions of identity and the relevant power dynamics in society. In practice, this typically means it is yet another justification within Theory for only people who agree with Theory to be considered knowledgeable authorities, which is then used to silence opposition and install “professionals” in positions of authority and power based on group identity alone—or, almost alone, as such people tend to have to present a critical consciousness, i.e., be woke Critical Social Justice activists, as well (see also, diversity and inclusion).
(2) – Max Horkheimer defined a “Critical Theory” in direct opposition to a “Traditional Theory” in a 1937 piece called Traditional and Critical Theory. Whereas a Traditional Theory is meant to be descriptive of some phenomenon, usually social, and aims to understand how it works and why it works that way, a Critical Theory should proceed from a prescriptive normative moral vision for society, describe how the item being critiqued fails that vision (usually in a systemic sense), and prescribe activism to subvert, dismantle, disrupt, overthrow, or change it—that is, generally, to break and then remake society in accordance with the particular critical theory’s prescribed vision. This use of the word “critical” is drawn from Marx’s insistence that everything be “ruthlessly” criticized and from his admonition that the point of studying society is to change it. Of note, then, a Critical Theory is only tangentially concerned with understanding or truth and has, as Hume might have it, abandoned descriptions of what is in favor of pushing for what the particular critical theory holds ought to be. The critical methodology, then, is the central object of concern, and it is the tool by which Social Justice scholarship and activism proceed.
More please.
This sort of refutation of transgeder ideological talking points needs to be everywhere. This is not about ‘being kind’ this is about recognizing the reality we all live in and BEING FAIR.
York University sets the bar low because challenging the intellectual assumptions of the student body is considered an act of ‘violence’. Read that right folks, hearing alternative world views will negatively affect student safety… at a University.
“Two days before I was due to travel to York, the event was cancelled. Days earlier the student union had removed the details of the event from the website, mumbling about ‘thorough risk assessments’. Essentially, they’re worried about spending more money on security for these events, so the organisers then usually cancel because they are then liable for the additional cost incurred.
This group of airheads have decided that I would be their maximum of 5/5 likelihood to breach the university’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policy. The fact that I am a woman of working-class origin, an out lesbian, and a lifelong feminist is obviously irrelevant to these privileged kids who think being pansexual or non-binary is an oppression.
Some choice quotes from student activists on the Student Solidarity Network Instagram account include: ‘Julie Bindel’s whole career is founded in supporting the mass homicide of sex workers.’ I was called a ‘bigot’, ‘dangerous’, and someone that regularly peddles hate speech and incitement to violence against marginalised groups. I was also labelled a homophobe and a misogynist, with over 40 years of my campaigning against male violence and women’s oppression dismissed.
If this anti-democratic, censorious bullying is allowed to continue, universities will become nothing more than breeding ground for men’s rights activists. We must put an end to it.”
The coddling bullshit is real. The softheaded trigger warned genderation is pathetic.
It is wise to seek council from many voices especially on the topic of children experiencing gender dysphoria. The professionals here seem quite biased toward a medical solution to for this family’s child. They seem unaware of what is going on in the UK and the unwarranted medication of children:
“In December 2020, the High Court ruled that under-16s were unlikely to be able to give informed consent to what it described as “experimental” treatment, which is sometimes used to pause puberty in children experiencing gender dysphoria.
Keira Bell, one of the claimants in the case, started taking puberty blockers at the age of 16 after being referred to the Tavistock and Portman Trust, which runs the UK’s only Gender Identity Development Service (Gids).”
The following account documents the experience of a family who attended a one-hour appointment at SickKids Gender Clinic in Toronto where they were told their daughter was a good candidate for the puberty blocker Lupron and would be able to start receiving the injections at the next appointment.
Yet here in Canada we seem to be all gung ho for medical intervention, as opposed to the more conventional and safer watchful waiting approach.
Sick Kids Gender Clinic Review
Several years ago, our 14 year old daughter advised us that she was transgender and wanted to be a boy. Over the next several months – although often requested – she did little to elaborate on her feelings or any other information on how or why she felt this way. Our family doctor counselled her a few times and she saw one psychologist once and a psychotherapist approximately three times before we sought out a referral to the gender clinic at Sick Kids hospital in Toronto.
Approximately one year after our daughter had suddenly begun to identify as a boy, we attended Sick Kids Hospital. We filled out a survey as did our daughter asking questions about our daughter’s childhood. We had an interview session with a physician and a male student observer as a family for about 30 minutes. The context that we gave to the counsellors during our portion of the session was that we felt that at least one of our daughter’s peers had greatly influenced this transgender epiphany. Further, she had recently been seeing a psychotherapist that was coaching her on what to say to Sick Kids to get hormone treatment right away. Our daughter had disclosed this to us after the third visit with this therapist. Lastly, her gender dysphoria had come about suddenly with the onset of puberty at age 14 with no previous indication of gender identity issues. Our daughter denied all of this during this interview.
We were asked to leave and our daughter then spoke with them without us for another 15 minutes. After that, we were invited back into the room and advised that they could not disclose what was discussed citing confidentiality but that our daughter did in fact have gender dysphoria. Further, they considered her to be a good candidate for Lupron but they could not give her a prescription until we had blood work done and the mandatory 3 month waiting period was complete. They handed us a lab requisition form for the blood work further stating that on our next visit they could administer the hormone blockers if the blood work was done.
We asked to speak to the counsellors in the absence of our child so we could express more detail about our concerns without upsetting, alienating or damaging our relationship with our daughter. They refused, stating that the confidentiality was with her, not with us and whatever we said to them without our daughter present they would just tell her anyway so we might as well say it in front of her. We questioned the safety and hastiness of the drug administration. We were advised “the sooner the better” and that Lupron simply puts puberty on hold and is fully reversible, which we knew is not entirely true. They commended us on our knowledge of the hormone blocker Lupron but totally ignored our concerns and minimized the risks.
We left the hospital shocked at the outcome. Not feeling that a one-hour long interview with a child and ignoring all parental input and concerns was sufficient to start on a course of hormones. We never returned to Sick Kids hospital.
Our daughter is now 17 and continues to identify as transgender, but has not expressed any desire to take any sort of medical intervention since our visit to Sick Kids. She continues to function well emotionally, socially and academically. She has close friends with which she socializes outside of school, works part-time and is on the honour role.
The recent surge of gender activism has not given Canadian society enough time to properly examine many issues surrounding the transing of children, or even the efficacy of taking cross sex hormones and the medical commitments and downfalls that come part in parcel with trying to change your sex.
See the entire list here.
3 – JK Rowling
JK Rowling is almost certainly the greatest writer of English children’s fiction of her generation, and a remarkable humanitarian. It turns out she writes exhilaratingly powerful prose too.
In a blog about the transgender debate, she offended many people. Offence is the price of free speech. Those offended felt she was questioning their identity and even attacking their human rights, which they argue is a form of discrimination or hate speech.
I take absolutely no view whatsoever on the issues that she raises.
I do take an issue on abuse and trolling, and Rowling has achieved the inglorious honour of topping many a league table for those. The deluge of hatred that she faced before writing this blog made it brave, and it was nothing compared to what came after. Talking about bravery, so too, by the way, was Suzanne Moore’s engrossing, long, personal essay for Unherd on why she left the Guardian.
We should all applaud bravery in writers – even those with whom we disagree. And Rowling’s essay contained moments of both real beauty and piercing honesty, as when she revealed that she is a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault.
What the judges – that is, the voices in my head – most admired about the writing was the plain English. It is an interesting fact about rhetoric that if you want people to understand something, plain, mono-syllabic words are usually your best bet: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country”.
Or think of the final line from Enoch Powell’s most notorious speech: “All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.”
I’m not endorsing the argument; but the rhetorical power of that line comes from the fact that there are 16 words, the first 15 of which have one syllable, and the last of which has three.
Compare it with this line in Rowling’s essay: “So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe.”
The rhetorical power from those two sentences derives partly from the plainness of the English. Only “women” (twice) and “natal” contain more than one syllable.
If you’re ever editing copy that seems verbose, go through it and think about cutting syllables while conveying the same meaning. Plain English has power. JK Rowling gets that.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…