You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Debate’ category.
Oh, bless the hearts of the gender-affirming care activists, still out there waving their rainbow flags like it’s 2015, undeterred by the pesky little detail that the evidence for this stuff is about as solid as a house of cards in a windstorm. You’d think a growing pile of studies—like the Cass Review out of the UK, which basically said, “Uh, guys, we’ve got no clue if this actually works long-term”—might slow them down. But no, they’re still preaching the gospel of hormones and surgeries for kids with the zeal of a late-night infomercial host, insisting it’s all about “saving lives.” Never mind that the data’s a mess—small samples, short follow-ups, and a whole lot of “trust us, it feels right.” It’s activism as performance art, and the show must go on, evidence be damned.
Meanwhile, the science keeps whispering inconvenient truths, like how many kids with gender dysphoria naturally sort themselves out by puberty if you just leave them alone—up to 80% or more, according to some studies. But why let a little thing like biology get in the way of a good narrative? Activists are too busy clutching their pearls over “transphobia” to notice that the American Academy of Pediatrics got caught with its pants down, basing its full-throated endorsement on vibes rather than rigorous trials. The systematic reviews—those boring, gold-standard things—keep coming up empty on proof that this care does more good than harm long-term, yet the megaphones stay on full blast. It’s almost admirable, this dedication to vibes over victory.
So here we are, with clinics still doling out blockers and binders like candy at a parade, while the activists insist anyone questioning the efficacy is just a bigot who hates happiness. Sweden, Finland, and even parts of the UK are pumping the brakes, shifting to therapy-first approaches because the evidence isn’t there—but not our intrepid North American crusaders! They’ve got anecdotes, TikTok testimonials, and a moral superiority complex to keep the train chugging along. Who needs peer-reviewed proof when you’ve got a cause this shiny? It’s not about whether it works—it’s about signaling you’re on the right side of history, even if history ends up laughing at the whole charade. Curtain’s up, folks—don’t expect a plot twist anytime soon.
“I Investigated the UK’s Most CENSORIOUS Campus (4K)” delves into the atmosphere of one of the UK’s universities known for its restrictive policies on free speech. The video, by journalist Andrew Gold, investigates how this institution has become a focal point for debates on censorship, examining incidents where speakers have been banned or events canceled due to their potentially controversial content.
It discusses the tension between ensuring a safe space for all students and the traditional university ethos of open debate and inquiry, highlighting specific cases where academic freedom has been challenged by student activism or university policies.
The narrative captures both the perspectives of those advocating for more censorship to protect vulnerable groups and those who see it as an erosion of free expression.
Trying to discuss political issues in today’s social climate can be difficult at times. Much of the difficulty lies with how many on the progressive Left have a priori determined that their position is the only possible position to hold on any particular issue.
Reading the Parents With Inconvenient Truths About Trans substack led me to this exchange between a woman who is grounded in reality and set of friends that follow the gender identity religion.
“When yesterday at lunch Monique brought up the issue of males in women’s bathrooms, I said I didn’t want any man in the stall next to me, no matter how he identifies. Women have a right to dignity and privacy, and that’s an assault on both. When Monique then asked if I’d have a problem with Lisa in the stall next to me, I had to answer truthfully: yes, I’d have a problem, because Lisa is a man. Although neither of you had put me on the spot before in a way that required me to state this explicitly, my answer shouldn’t have surprised you.
Monique suggested that my unwillingness to share intimate female spaces with men, whether or not they mimic women, is the same kind of bigotry as refusing to share intimate female spaces with black women. Gary appeared to agree. But the unwillingness of any woman to give up her rights is not bigotry.
Men and women segregate themselves from each other when in the toilet for good reasons. It appears to be instinctual because it’s true of males and females in far-flung societies.
It’s neither liberal nor tolerant to demand that women abandon their rights and their boundaries to accommodate men who would like to be thought of as women. Making such demands is, instead, authoritarian. It’s also not within the rights of any third party to give any man access to women’s and girls’ private spaces.”
The text in bold is the argumentative dead end so many Progressive choose. I think it is because they have imbued their position with a sense of moral correctness that they are so willing to shut down conversations rather than listen to those who hold differing points of view.
Obviously it is a false equivalence to try and compare men in females spaces with black females in female spaces. Completely fallacious. Yet, the frequency in which this sort of tactic is employed speaks to how effective it is in shutting down dissent in social situations.
There are no easy social solutions to this other than to point out the inaccuracy of their argument, and restate your thesis and ask them to address the question without the implicit moral assumptions.
Try high quality listening (link to paper).
100% foolproof plan? No, but we want people to be able to consider their own positions on issues. The more defensive someone is, the less likely they are to be open to any discussion/discernment of what they are arguing. 
Did you want to hear this not being put into action listen to this “debate” and see how raising the stakes and grilling your opponent does for the search for truth.
Look. Just look. People with wildly different political allegiances have a heated, spirited, and RESPECTFUL discussion of contentious issues. It can be done.
Discourse is the lifeblood of democratic societies and thus, we should be wary of people who would shut down discourse rather than defend their ideas in the public square.
And the rebuttal from Professor Gary Francione. Please note this is the way you must always answer queer arguments and conclusions – the identification of where they intentionally blur boundaries or insert esoteric meanings to common words must be highlighted.
“TRAs use this argument all the time. It is a silly argument.
Here’s an easy rebuttal to keep in mind: Segregation and homophobia are morally wrong because they deny full membership in the moral and legal community based on the irrelevant criteria of race and sexual orientation.
Biological sex is *very* relevant to concerns about violence toward biological females. Violence against women is a matter of their biology and the demeaning cultural ideas that women are things for sexual use by men. Because these ideas attach to women in virtue of femaleness, they do not bring in transwomen, who are not similarly situated.
No one is saying that segregation is wrong because black people are really white people or that homophobia is wrong because all gay people are really straight. But that is exactly what the TRA claim is: separating males and females is wrong because some men are really women.
That requires the acceptance of a metaphysical belief claim that is indistinguishable from a religious claim and that no one is required to accept in a liberal, pluralistic society.”
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…