You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Gender Issues’ category.
This quote from@prof_curiosity on X: Piaget: The construction of learning
“Piaget viewed children as “little scientists” who actively construct knowledge by testing and refining mental schemas, most often through play. Through assimilation (fitting new experiences into existing schemas) and accommodation (adjusting schemas when they do not fit), driven by equilibration (resolving confusion), children progress through four stages: sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational.Development is a self-motivated process of making sense of the world. Adults naturally introduce their own schemas to children; most are well-meaning and beneficial. However, it is hard to imagine a more destructive schema for young children than that of ‘gender identity.’ Piaget’s theory explains how and why children adopt this adult shortcut to achieve equilibration.Simply it provides easy answers to difficult questions.What transgender ideology offers these playful child scientists is a highly self-destructive, adult schema (construct) wholly unsuitable for their developing, vulnerable minds. This schema, if pushed by significant adults, can easily be assimilated into a child’s learning patterns, providing ready made answers (equilibration) to questions the child would be years away from naturally asking; along with terrible, self-destructive answers to natural self-doubts. Thus, for a toddler girl: “Why do I prefer to play with boys’ things, etc.?” The inserted adult schema answers, “Because you are really a boy.” Of course the correct answer would be, “Because that is who you are” backed up with, “And you are perfect as you are – so carry on playing”.However transgenderism is not interested in children growing into well balanced adults. It targets vulnerable, especially autistic children, with undeveloped schemas who can be convinced that the way to achieve equilibration is to perform “being transgender”. It needs these (trans) children to provide cover for adult autogynephiles.This brilliant application of Piaget’s theory highlights why imposing adult “gender identity” concepts on children short-circuits their natural cognitive development—and why it’s especially harmful for vulnerable groups like autistic kids.”
Evidence backs this up: A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis found a clear overlap between autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and gender dysphoria/incongruence, with autistic youth far more likely to experience it, likely due to challenges with flexible schemas and social understanding.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35596023/The UK’s independent Cass Review (2024) went further: after rigorous systematic evidence reviews, it concluded the evidence for puberty blockers and hormones in minors is weak, with risks (e.g., bone density loss, fertility impacts) outweighing unproven benefits. It recommends extreme caution and holistic care over rapid affirmation.
Full report: https://cass.independent-review.uk/final-report/We must protect children’s natural exploration through play and affirm their bodies as they are. Imposing ideology that locks in confusion isn’t kindness—it’s harm. Prioritize evidence-based therapy and watchful waiting.
In a ruling that should alarm every woman—and indeed every citizen—who values free speech and the right to defend sex-based protections, Australian women’s rights advocate Kirralie Smith has been ordered to pay $95,000 in damages and issue a forced public statement for the “crime” of accurately describing biological males as men. Smith’s offence? Highlighting the participation of two transgender-identifying males in women’s football competitions and refusing to pretend that men can become women.
Kirralie Smith, director of Binary Australia, an organisation dedicated to affirming that there are only two sexes, was found guilty under New South Wales anti-vilification laws of unlawfully vilifying the individuals by referring to them with male pronouns and terms like “bloke.” She shared publicly available information from football clubs and raised legitimate concerns about fairness, safety, and the integrity of women’s sport. For this, a court has branded her words as inciting “hatred and serious contempt,” imposing a hefty financial penalty that will double if not paid within 28 days, alongside orders to remove posts and pin a court-mandated statement on her social media.This is not justice—it is the state-enforced erasure of women.
When a woman can be punished for stating the undeniable reality that no man can ever be a woman, we have reached a dystopian low. Women fought for decades to establish sex-based rights: single-sex sports, spaces, and services designed to protect female privacy, dignity, and fair competition. These protections exist precisely because biological sex matters—men, on average, retain physical advantages even after hormone treatments, and no amount of self-identification changes chromosomes, reproductive biology, or the lived experience of being female.Yet in modern Australia, courts are increasingly prioritising the feelings of a tiny minority over the rights of half the population.
Smith’s case echoes broader trends, such as the ongoing fallout from rulings like Tickle v Giggle, where biological reality is subordinated to gender identity claims. The message is clear: women must surrender their language, their boundaries, and their advocacy, or face ruinous consequences.What makes this particularly tragic is that Smith’s advocacy was not born of malice but of concern for women and girls. Males entering female sports displace women from teams, podiums, and scholarships. They compromise safety in contact sports. And when women speak up—as Smith did—they are silenced, fined, and forced to “confess” to thought crimes.
Kirralie Smith has vowed to appeal, declaring: “Nothing will steal my joy in knowing that I am a woman and no male ever will be. I am proud to stand for truth and reality.” Her courage is an inspiration. This ruling sets a dangerous precedent not just for activists, but for journalists, politicians, parents, and everyday women who dare to say the obvious: sex is real, immutable, and worth protecting.Women’s rights are not negotiable. They are not “inclusive” costumes for men to don. Until laws stop punishing women for naming reality, the fight must continue.
Support voices like Kirralie’s—because if they can come for her today, they can come for any of us tomorrow.
- Kirralie Smith’s original X post announcing the penalty (primary source):
https://x.com/KirralieS/status/1996731443264037335 - Binary Australia official statement on the vilification judgements (August 2025, detailing the guilty finding):
https://www.binary.org.au/vilification_judgements_in_full - Reduxx report on the penalty (women’s rights-focused outlet):
https://reduxx.info/australian-woman-ordered-to-pay-95000-to-two-trans-identified-males-playing-in-womens-football-for-misgendering/ - Rebel News report on the ruling and appeal vow:
https://www.rebelnews.com/women_s_rights_campaigner_fined_95k_vows_immediate_appeal - The Daily Declaration article on the fine and forced statement:
https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2025/12/05/kirralie-smith-fined/ - OUTinPerth report (LGBTQ+ media outlet confirming the $95,000 damages and constitutional finding):
https://www.outinperth.com/binary-leader-kirralie-smith-ordered-t-pay-95000-and-make-public-apology/ - Star Observer report (LGBTQ+ media outlet on the vilification finding and apology order):
https://www.starobserver.com.au/news/anti-trans-activist-kirralie-smith-ordered-to-pay-almost-100k-issue-public-apology-following-vilification-ruling/239923 - Equality Australia statement welcoming the ruling (trans advocacy perspective):
https://equalityaustralia.org.au/court-ruling-that-anti-trans-campaigner-unlawfully-vilified-two-trans-women-is-welcomed-by-equality-australia/
The rapid proliferation of gender ideology over the past decade—especially the surge of adolescent-onset gender dysphoria—stands as one of the clearest examples of social contagion in modern Western societies. A clinical framework once reserved for a very small number of adults with persistent, childhood-onset dysphoria was transformed into a cultural mandate through the convergence of three forces: institutional capture, algorithm-driven identity formation, and activist-driven medical practice.
Between 2015 and the early 2020s, referrals for gender services exploded—driven overwhelmingly by teenage girls with no prior history of dysphoria. Peer-group clustering, sudden identity shifts following intense online exposure, and the complete inversion of historic sex ratios all point to a socially transmitted phenomenon rather than a newly discovered biological one. Yet under the “affirmation” model, minors were placed on puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and permanent surgeries despite limited evidence, poorly understood risks, and a professional culture that increasingly discouraged clinical skepticism.
The hardest obstacle to unwind, however, will not be the institutions that enabled this shift. Policies can change, clinics can be restructured, and professional bodies can revise guidelines—as they already have across parts of Europe. The most immovable barrier will be parents. Many acted from compassion, social pressure, or a sincere desire to be “supportive,” but they now face an excruciating truth: they approved irreversible medical interventions on psychologically vulnerable teenagers during a developmental window historically marked by transient distress, identity confusion, and social sensitivity.
Double mastectomies on minors, lifetime fertility loss, and surgeries with complication rates exceeding anything considered acceptable elsewhere in medicine are not abstract debates. They are lived consequences. For parents, acknowledging error would require confronting a moral reality few can bear: that they were active participants in harming their own child. The human mind is built to avoid that revelation at all costs.
As a result, the detransition wave—real, growing, and increasingly documented—will face its fiercest resistance not from clinics or activists, but from within families. Parents will cling to the “lifesaving care” narrative long after the institutions that encouraged it have quietly retreated. They will reinterpret events to preserve psychic stability, even if doing so deepens the suffering of the child who must now live with the consequences.
Reversing the damage will require more than policy reform or legal accountability. It will require a public reckoning with the psychological mechanisms of self-deception, moral injury, and sunk-cost loyalty that allowed an entire society to medicate and operate on distressed adolescents in the name of affirmation. That reckoning—private, painful, and unavoidable—is the hardest part still to come.
References
-
The Cass Review – Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People (Interim Report) — NHS-commissioned review (Feb 2022) by Dr. Hilary Cass. Sex Matters
-
The Cass Review: Final Report (April 2024) — Hilary Cass’s full independent review. BASW+1
-
NHS England: Public Consultation Analysis & Summary – Interim Clinical Policy on Puberty-Suppressing Hormones (Jan 2024) — analysis of feedback on proposed policy changes. NHS England
-
Commission on Human Medicines (UK) Report – Proposed Restriction on GnRH Agonists for Under-18s — recommendation to restrict puberty blockers. GOV.UK
-
Equality & Health Inequalities Impact Assessment (EHIA), NHS England — assessment of health-inequality risks from the policy change on puberty blockers. GOV.UK+1
-
Karolinska Institutet Systematic Review on Hormonal Treatment in Youths (<18) — finds that GnRHa treatment should be considered experimental due to lack of long-term data. Karolinska Institutet News
-
Karolinska Hospital Policy Statement (April 2021) — stops prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors under 16 except in research settings. Feminist Legal Clinic
Emanuel Brünisholz, a Swiss repairman, has made headlines for refusing to pay a fine imposed for a social-media comment stating what he says are biological truths: that there are only two sexes as determined by skeletal evidence. Because he wouldn’t pay the fine, he opted instead to serve 10 days in jail. He was convicted under Switzerland’s anti-discrimination laws (Art. 261bis), which have been expanded to include “sexual identities” beyond race, religion, etc. His statement was judged to belittle the LGBTQI community and violate human dignity, though Brünisholz insists he was speaking objective biological fact. (Reduxx)
This case is deeply troubling, because it illustrates a slippery slope: when a judge or prosecutor can criminalize speech that claims a biological fact, simply because some group interprets it as hateful. That is not far off from what proposed Canadian legislation threatens. The Combatting Hate Act, introduced in September 2025, would make it a criminal offence to “wilfully promote hatred” against identifiable groups (including on grounds of gender identity) by any public display or speech. It also aims to streamline prosecutions for “hate propaganda,” remove some procedural checks, and broaden the definition of hate. Critics warn that this will give activist minority claims outsized power over what counts as acceptable speech. (Government of Canada)
If Brünisholz’s case was an outlier, then Canada’s proposals make clear this is a trajectory, not a one-off. Under the proposed laws, someone could theoretically be prosecuted (and even imprisoned) for speaking truths about biological sex if a court determines that such statements violate the new definitions of hatred or hate speech. That means what is scientifically or biologically reality could become illegal speech, depending on who is offended and how strong the activist pressure is. In a Western democracy that claims to defend freedom of expression, this is simply unacceptable.
We must not accept that the mere possibility of offending a protected group is enough for criminal sanction. We must resist laws that hand over the power to judges or prosecutors (or activist complainants) to decide what biological truths are “hate.” Because once speech can be criminalized based on activist interpretation, the foundations of open, free inquiry, reason, and reality are at risk.
Key Comparisons: Swiss Case vs. Proposed Canadian Laws
| Feature | Swiss Case (Brünisholz) | Proposed Canadian Laws (Combatting Hate Act / related bills) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of statement | Emphasis on binary sex; “only man and woman” skeleton argument | Biological sex, gender identity claims could be targeted under new definitions of hate |
| Punishment | Fine convertible to 10 days jail if unpaid | Proposed penalties include imprisonment, removal of procedural protections |
| Law basis | Anti-discrimination / hate speech law expanded to “sexual identities” in Switzerland | Criminal Code, Criminal Code’s hate propaganda provisions, amendments to CHRA, etc. |
| Risk of censorship | High — statement considered “belittling” a protected class despite appeal to biological evidence | Also high — definitions are broad; courts could side with activist interpretations over scientific or factual speech |
| Freedom of speech concern | Biologically rooted fact may be criminalized if deemed insulting or hateful | Same concern: scientific / truth claims could be suppressed if they conflict with activist definitions of what counts as acceptable speech |
Why This Matters
- Biological Truths Are Not “Opinions” Alone: Things like male vs. female biological sex are backed by sciences like genetics, anatomy, forensic anthropology. If those become “hate speech” when expressed, then reality is subject to legal veto by ideological enforcement.
- The Power to Define “Hate” is the Power to Silence: Under Canadian law, if definitions of hatred or hatred-motivated speech expand (especially by removing required consent, or giving prosecutors more discretion), then more speech becomes liable—not because it causes harm, but because someone claims it does.
- Free Speech is Not Optional: Western democracy is built in part on being able to speak even unpopular or uncomfortable truths. If truth becomes legally risky, we’re no longer free—even if the penalties aren’t always applied.
- Precedent Matters: Once speech is criminalized for some, even “harmless” speech tomorrow could become the target. Laws tend to expand in scope over time. The Brünisholz case shows how “harmless to some, hateful to others” becomes a legal equation.
What to Watch & What to Do
- Monitor what the final definitions are in Canadian bills: how they define hatred, “wilfully promoting hatred,” “identifiable groups,” and what defenses are permitted (e.g., truth, scientific basis).
- Watch penalties: whether fines only, or possibility of imprisonment; whether Criminal Code or human rights tribunal; how strong the burden of proof is.
- Pay attention to how administrative procedures work: whether prosecutors need prior approvals, whether individuals or groups can privately instigate charges/complaints, whether there’s ability to appeal.
- Support and defend free speech, especially for dissenting or scientific views. Speak out when persons are penalized for expressing what others call “politically incorrect truths.”
References
- “Swiss Man Opts For Jail Time Instead Of Fine After Being Charged Over ‘Transphobic’ Social Media Post”, Reduxx, Sept 26, 2025 — Brünisholz case. (Reduxx)
- “Combatting Hate Act: Proposed Legislation to Protect Communities Against Hate”, Government of Canada, Sept 19, 2025 — summary of proposed amendments, hate definitions, penalties. (Government of Canada)
- “Canada Introduces Legislation to Combat Hate Crimes, Intimidation, and Obstruction”, Department of Justice Canada news release, Sept 19, 2025 — details on new offences including intimidation, obstruction, containing identity grounds. (Government of Canada)
Gender ideology, with its audacious claim that biological sex bows to subjective whim, is a wrecking ball smashing through truth, family, and society. It peddles a fiction: that countless individuals are born in the “wrong” bodies, requiring medical mutilation to “fix” what evolution perfected over millennia. When parents of dependent children are egged on to “transition,” the fallout is catastrophic—not just personal, but existential. This isn’t a debate; it’s a societal suicide pact demanding fierce, unflinching resistance.
Shattering Children’s Worlds
Children, fragile and tethered to parental stability, are shattered when a parent’s identity shift obliterates their world. Hormones, surgeries, or social reinventions don’t just alter a parent—they fracture the child’s sense of security. Clinical psychologist Dr. Erica Anderson, herself transgender, warns of a “social experiment with unknown outcomes” for these vulnerable kids (Anderson, 2021). A 2020 study in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry confirms this, documenting spikes in anxiety, depression, and identity confusion among children of transitioning parents. Prioritizing an adult’s ideological fantasy over a child’s emotional bedrock isn’t progress—it’s betrayal, pure and simple.
Demolishing Family Bonds
Families, the crucible of human connection, disintegrate under this ideology’s corrosive weight. A parent’s transition often torches marriages—Brown and Marlowe’s 2020 study notes a 60% divorce rate in such cases, with spouses and children grappling with emotional wreckage (Journal of Family Social Work). The ideology’s fetish for individual affirmation over collective duty rips apart interdependence, leaving children caught in loyalty conflicts and spouses facing unrecognizable partners. This isn’t liberation; it’s a familial debacle—a slow-motion implosion of the bonds that sustain us.
Corroding Institutions
Society’s institutions—schools, hospitals, public health bodies—buckle as gender ideology infects them. The Cass Review (2024), a damning UK investigation, exposed the Tavistock Clinic’s gender-affirming protocols as ideologically driven, not evidence-based, jeopardizing patient safety. Similar scandals, like those involving NHS trusts prioritizing activist demands over clinical rigor. When medicine and education forsake reason for dogma, public trust corrodes. This isn’t inclusion—it’s a betrayal of the empirical foundations that anchor civilization.
Defying Biological Reality
Biologically, gender ideology is utter bollocks. Human sexual dimorphism, refined over millions of years, ensures survival through clear male and female roles. Claims of mass “body mismatches” are baseless—intersex conditions occur in under 0.5% of the population (Sax, 2002). If pervasive dysphoria were innate, humanity would have joined Neanderthals and Denisovans in the evolutionary dustbin. Yet, we’re told the most advanced species can’t navigate puberty without carving up healthy bodies? Absurd. This ideology spits on evolutionary resilience, peddling a delusion that demands surgical fixes for psychological distress. The stakes are existential: either we reclaim material reality, or we watch society unravel—child by child, family by family, institution by institution.
References
- Anderson, E. (2021). We’re fast-tracking gender transition in kids—and it’s not going well. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2022-04-12/a-transgender-psychologist-reckons-with-how-to-support-a-new-generation-of-trans-teens
- Brown, J., & Marlowe, J. (2020). Experiences of spouses and families following gender transition: A qualitative study. Journal of Family Social Work, 23(2), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/10522158.2020.1718592
- Cass Review. (2024). Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People: Final Report. NHS England. https://cass.independent-review.uk/publications/final-report/
- Sax, L. (2002). How common is intersex? A response to Anne Fausto-Sterling. The Journal of Sex Research, 39(3), 174–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552139
- Turban, J. L., et al. (2020). Psychological outcomes in children of transitioning parents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 61(8), 903–911. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13206
https://x.com/wokal_distance/status/1943452227634630725
On July 10, Wokal Distance shared a powerful thread on X about the moral and intellectual fallout of gender ideology. Here’s the full text, reformatted for clarity:
I don’t think the left realizes the degree to which giving puberty blockers and sex-change procedures to kids who wanted to change genders was a test of moral and intellectual integrity. That test utterly destroyed the moral and intellectual credibility of everyone who failed it.
Those who went along with gender ideology didn’t just end up on the wrong side of public opinion. They demonstrated for the whole world that they had no intellectual integrity, moral fortitude, or ability to stand up for the truth or think for themselves.
They showed they have no intellectual or moral anchors of any kind. They’ll pretend to believe anything and go along with any ideology to preserve their social standing and the esteem of their colleagues.
The result? The institutions, industries, and individuals who embraced gender ideology proved they were intellectually and morally hollow. In the process, they destroyed their credibility and legitimacy as experts in the eyes of the public.
This isn’t just a PR crisis. It’s not about the focus of institutions or how people present themselves. The real issue is whether our elite class has the professional capability and moral fiber to competently do their jobs.
Gender ideology was a test of moral compass, intellectual integrity, and professional competence. If you have even one of those three qualities, you reject gender ideology. The only way to go along with it is to lack all three completely.
Those who supported gender ideology showed no moral compass, no intellectual integrity, no ability to think for themselves, and no professional competence in understanding critical issues. They’ve proven themselves utterly illegitimate as elites or experts.
They’ve shown they’re constitutionally incapable of doing the jobs they were assigned. For that reason, they’ve lost all social legitimacy and trustworthiness.
Progressives think this is a messaging problem or a PR crisis—it’s not. This is about the fundamental legitimacy of the entire institutional apparatus from which the left draws its professionals, staffers, employees, ideas, policies, and overall direction.
The left can’t fix this by shifting focus or direction. They must admit they failed the gender ideology test, explain why and how they failed, and put people in charge who would pass that test. Until they do, they’ll continue to be seen as illegitimate.
And they have no idea why, because they refuse to take the ‘L’ and figure out how their entire movement and all their institutions got hijacked by the most extreme wing of the most niche leftist movement in American politics.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…