You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Politics’ category.
Transactivism and transgender ideology in general have little respect for truth, morality, and established scientific/medical procedures and processes. It is imperative to realize that this ideology at its very core is activist inspired and activist driven. Their goal is to violently change how society works and there is never a bridge too far. There is no institution or individual that is not worth the sacrifice if the overarching goal (destabilizing society enough for social revolution, so the margins can be moved to the centre) can be met.
So, yes its okay to push the demonstrably false narrative of affirm-or-suicide on parents. If the familial bond can be severed, any damage inflicted is worth it because creating another destabilized transgender activist helps the cause along. The gender-mill always requires more useful idiots to do its bidding.
“Sapir believes that the fear-mongering with inflated statistics about trans suicide rates has been essential to activists in achieving their goals in the political arena. “The affirm-or-suicide mantra has become the central strategy of contemporary transgender activism, and at times it would seem that activists have little else in their rhetorical arsenal,” said Sapir.
Sapir cites recent examples of the hyperbolic language used by purveyors of the affirm-or-suicide myth. Khiara Bridges told Senator Josh Hawley during a recent senate hearing that his “transphobic” line of questioning is why “one in five” transgender people attempt suicide.
Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg agreed with his husband Chasten, who said that the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act would “kill kids.” Maia Kobabe, author of the pornographic children’s book Gender Queer, said her book’s presence in libraries was “life-saving.” The term “life-saving” was also used by Assistant Secretary for Health and Human Services Rachel Levine regarding “gender affirming” interventions (i.e. sex changes) for kids. Levine is a trans-identified biological male.
“Despite the unwaveringly confident manner in which these claims are often asserted, there is no good evidence that failing to ‘affirm’ minors in their ‘gender identity’ will increase the likelihood of them committing suicide,” said Sapir. “Gender activists commonly argue that roughly four in ten transgender-identified youth (TIY) attempt suicide when not socially and medically ‘affirmed.’ Does the research bear this out? The simple answer is: no,” he adds.
Sapir found that surveys of suicidality in “trans” youth rely on self-report and do little to vet whether suicide was actually attempted. Studies that claim “trans” youth are at elevated risk of suicide are commonly compared with average mentally healthy teenagers, which is deeply misleading. When researchers compared “trans” youth with teens suffering from similar mental health problems, there was virtually no difference in suicide rates between the groups. “Trans” youth are not any more suicidal than teens with garden variety mental illness, which means that failing to “affirm” a child’s transgender identity does not drive suicidal behavior.
Teens with rapid onset gender dysphoria are “known to have very high rates of anxiety, depression, history of sexual trauma, anorexia, and eating disorders, all of which typically precede their gender-related distress,” said Sapir, who believes that gender distress may be a symptom of a troubled teenage girl, but it is incorrectly being treated as an underlying cause.
Sapir dives into the studies purporting to find that puberty blockers given to minors lead to reduced suicidality. The author of the studies, Jack Turban, a trans activist and psychiatry fellow at UCSF, has a long history of designing poor experiments and using bad methodology and biased samples to draw erroneous conclusions from data. “Turban sold his work to an eager media environment as having found strong evidence that puberty blockers are life-saving and medically necessary. And they gobbled it up uncritically,” said Sapir.
A Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) is the gold standard for finding a causal relationship in science. No RCT has ever studied the effects of puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria, which is why the FDA has never approved the use of Lupron and other puberty blockers for that purpose.
The claims activists make about puberty blockers being completely safe, effective, and a “pause button on puberty” rely entirely on referencing their approved on-label use which is to treat precocious puberty, not how they are increasingly being used off-label to treat gender dysphoria.
Sapir breaks down a thoroughly debunked 2018 article by Jason Rafferty published in Pediatrics that claimed to find conclusive evidence that alternatives to gender-affirming care are “futile and harmful.”
“The article contains a shocking number of errors, omissions, and blatant mischaracterizations of the available research on pediatric gender transition, some of them so fundamental and egregious as to suggest bad faith in the authors,” said Sapir. He added that the article’s central conclusion is negated by its citations and flawed logic.
“The hyperbole surrounding the suicide threat is designed to get us to overlook the fundamentally experimental nature of pediatric gender medicine,” said Sapir. The point of suicide alarmism, he adds, is to get us to not weigh the pros and cons, benefits and risks.”
Clearly, transgender ideology has always been on the wrong side of science. Hopefully soon it will be on the wrong side of history.
Being able to freely discuss and share one’s thoughts in the public sphere is one of the hallmarks of a society that embraces freedom and freedom of speech. We, as responsible concerned citizens, should not be afraid to examine, discuss, and delve deeply into any topic that is important or relevant to our society and our social experience.
Authoritarians on the both the Right and the Left are opposed to citizenry in free societies discussing their pet issues in the public square and will use many tactics to shut down debate or at least increase the social cost of doing so, as to discourage most people from engaging.
Personally, I get this most when trying defend the notion that gender identity movement in its current form is actively harmful toward female rights, boundaries, and safety in our society. Trying to discuss the notion that men (regardless of how they identify) should not be in female prisons is a prime example of the rhetorical cartwheels seemingly engaged automatically when this topic is broached. “You hate trans people!” or “You’re transphobic!”…. Erm… No, it is just that there is a real safety problem with putting men into female single sex spaces that SHOULD have been discussed and debated before we actual did it here in Canadian society – So now we have to do it post hoc, ,and deal with the consequences of this foolish decision – that is females are being abused and sexually assaulted in female prisons by men who (falsely) claim they are women.
Men’s feelings about their gender should not outweigh the safety and security of women in institutional settings. This discussion needs to be had and should have been had in our public political landscape.
I digress a bit, but one of the many ways in which authoritarians attempt to discourage discussion – see the name calling example above – is the deployment of the motte-and-bailey fallacy. W.Alexander Bell tackles the fallacy in his essay quoted below:
“One way that happens is by using the motte-and-bailey fallacy. One modest and easy-to-defend position (the motte) is replaced by a much more controversial position (the bailey). A person will argue the bailey, but then replace it with the motte when questioned.
For example, a key concept of critical race theory and the broader social justice movement is the notion of lived experience, which means that marginalized people have better access to knowledge about their own experiences of oppression than privileged people do. On the surface, that seems quite reasonable. A white person can never know how it feels to be called the n-word, and a man might be oblivious to how it feels to be a woman in a male-dominated profession. Sexism and racism do exist, so it seems reasonable to assume that members of the majority are less likely to recognize such prejudices.
However, the proponents of critical race theory and intersectionality do not stop there. Smuggled into their notion of lived experience is an adherence to the more controversial “standpoint epistemology,” a postmodern theory of knowledge that rejects reaching for objectivity and argues that marginalized people have authoritative knowledge about complex systems of oppression and society itself.
For example, a colleague of mine at a Swedish university cited his lived experience when he argued that critics of Sweden’s immigration policies are all racists and should be banned from speaking at universities.
When I told him that his lived experience was just anecdotal—that there is no way he could generalize about millions of people based on a few bad encounters—he doubled down and replied, “that’s a very white male thing to say.” Initially, I worried that I wasn’t sympathetic enough to his experiences as an immigrant, despite being one myself. However, I now realize that I was being emotionally manipulated and shamed into silence through a very clever bait-and-switch. These tactics are not part of a good-faith debate, but rather a rhetorical strategy to claim epistemic authority and gain power.
Retreating to the motte of lived experience is a manipulative tactic that the disciples of the social justice movement use to exploit compassionate peoples’ desire not to offend others. The motte-and-bailey allows pseudo-academics and activists to shut down important discussions without making an argument or citing any credible scholarship or data. It also allows them to drown out well-reasoned arguments with selective anecdotes, emotional appeals, shaming tactics, and religious zealotry.
The idea that suffering brings enlightenment—that a class of “woke” individuals will lead us to the promised land with their “revealed knowledge”—has much more in common with religious mysticism than academic inquiry. In an age when we are dealing with increasingly urgent and complex issues such as climate change and a global pandemic, well-reasoned arguments have even greater importance. Personal experience doesn’t need to be ignored, but a personal anecdote cannot be a substitute for data and honest debate.”
Watch for it while you engage with (faux) progressives. Actually progressives want to make society better through thoughtful discussion and authentic inclusion of many different viewpoints. Faux-progressives will attempt to curate discussion and shutdown debate/discussion that is unpalatable to them.
For more on the Motte-and-Bailey fallacy see James Lindsey’s podcast on the topic.
Did you want to know the state of things? Here it is. Get out there and demand that we respect female rights, boundaries, and safety in society.
James Lindsay writes about how to recognize the prevalent patterns of Neo-Marxist thought and how to they promulgate in society:
“Take race, for example. If one assumes, as did Cheryl I. Harris in 1993, that “whiteness” defines a special form of property that certain people (“whites”) can treat as exclusive, a complete Marxist theory of race can drop out of the political economy machine. They call it “Critical Race Theory,” and, for reasons that are about to be perfectly clear, I call it “Race Marxism.” Here’s how it works, comparing against classical Marxism with a forward slash between the concepts.
Some people (whites/capitalists) unjustly declare themselves the exclusive possessors of a special form of private property (whiteness/capital), thereby divide society into those who have it and those who don’t, and begin to arrange society such that the power granted through that access increases for those people over time. Those excluded from the resource and thus power by this declaration (people of color/workers) are thereby exploited for their productive capacity that is then turned into surplus value (cultural property/profit) for the advantaged class. Not only are the exploited thereby robbed of what they produce (cultural property/labor value), but they are estranged from who they really are (valid representatives of a culture/producers). More specifically, the product of their work (cultural production/labor) is subsumed into the privileged class (becomes part of white culture/is turned into profit), leaving the exploited (people of color/worker) impoverished (culturally/materially) and unable to recognize himself for who he really is (say, authentically Black/a producer). All this is enabled by the privileged class structuring society at its most fundamental levels for their own benefit (structural or systemic racism/structural classism), justified by the privileged class promulgating an ideology that it’s how things are supposed to be (white supremacy/capitalism and meritocracy). People in this dynamic system can be awakened to the structural “realities” of their lives and become (race/class) conscious activists (antiracists/proletarians) who work to seize the means of production (cultural/material) of their society to make it more fair (equitable/socialist). Eventually, this will be generally understood as the right way to order a society and will, through their praxis inverting into the inversion of praxis and thus socially conditioning people to accept it, become spontaneously fair (socially just/communist).
This extends to other forms of property, construed more abstractly as not just material as in capital and land, but also as social, cultural, and even human capital. This allows for the instantaneous creation of the entire constellation of “Identity Marxist” theories of identity politics with virtually no work (which makes it funny how much work it has taken these people to devise this stuff). Again, technically none of these is a theory (they’re all anthroposophies and/or theosophies). Here’s a quick summary:
Marxism: The bourgeoisie claims access to a special form of property called capital. They create an ideology called capitalism (based on things like meritocracy) to justify this. This allows them to structure society with structural classism that advantages the bourgoisie and exploits, estranges, and disenfranchises the working class. People can be made aware of the Marxist theory of societal production and become class-conscious proletarians or a bourgeois vanguard operating in solidarity on their behalf. If they seize the means of production of society and Man, they will usher in socialism that will eventually ripen into Communism through the inversion of praxis.
Critical Race Theory: The whites (and their adjacents) claims access to a special form of property called whiteness. They create an ideology called white supremacy (based on things like meritocracy and racism) to justify this. This allows them to structure society with structural or systemic racism that advantages whites and exploits, estranges, and disenfranchises people of color. People can be made aware of the Critical Race theory of societal production and become race-conscious antiracists and/or “white allies” operating in solidarity on their behalf. If they seize the means of race-cultural production of society and Man, they will usher in racial equity that will eventually ripen into racial justice (a kind of social justice) through the inversion of praxis.
(Marxian) Feminism: Men claim access to a special form of property called maleness or masculinity. They create an ideology called male supremacy or hegemonic masculinity (based on things like meritocracy and sexism) to justify this. This allows them to structure society with patriarchy and structural or systemic sexism, enforced by misogyny, that advantages men and exploits, estranges, and disenfranchises women, as a class. People can be made aware of the (Marxian) feminist theory of societal production and become feminist-conscious feminists and/or “male allies” operating in solidarity on their behalf. If they seize the means of sex-cultural and material production of society and Man, they will usher in gender equity that will eventually ripen into feminist justice (a kind of social justice) through the inversion of praxis.
Queer Theory: Straight people whose “gender identity” and sex match (and those who pass as such) claim access to a special form of property called normalcy (by declaring themselves the normal ones and defining normalcy to mean like themselves). They create an ideology called normativity (e.g., heteronormativity and cisnormativity) to justify this. This allows them to structure society with structural or systemic homophobia and/or transphobia (or, generally, queer-phobia) that advantages the “normal” and exploits, estranges, and disenfranchises “queers” (anyone different, especially gays, lesbians, bisexuals, the gender non-conforming, transgenders, and the mentally ill). People can be made aware of the Queer Theory theory of societal production and become queer-conscious (“proud”) allies operating in solidarity on their behalf. If they seize the means of normative cultural production of society and Man, they will usher in gender, sexual, and sex equity that will eventually ripen into gender, sexual, and sex justice (a kind of social justice) through the inversion of praxis.
Disability Studies: The able-bodied claim access to a special form of property called “ability.” They create an ideology described from the outside as dis/ableism (based on a belief that it is generally better to be fully able-bodied than not, and further based in ideas like “medicalism”) to justify this. This allows them to structure society with structural or systemic dis/ableism that advantages able-bodied and exploits, estranges, disenfranchises, and disables the disabled or “differently abled.” People can be made aware of the Disability Studies theory of societal production and become disability activists conscious allies operating in solidarity on their behalf. If they seize the means of ability-relevant cultural and material production of society and Man, they will usher in ability-based equity that will eventually ripen into ability-based justice (a kind of social justice) through the inversion of praxis.
Fat Studies: The “thin” (those who are not “fat”) claim access to a special form of property called “normal weight” or even “health.” They create an ideology described from the outside as thinnormativity (based on a belief that it is generally better to be at a healthy weight than not, and further based in ideas like “healthism” and “medicalism”) to justify this. This allows them to structure society with structural or systemic fatphobia that advantages “thin” people and exploits, estranges, and disenfranchises the “fat” (they cannot be called “obese” because that “medicalizes” them or “overweight” because that “unjustly” implies a normal or acceptable weight). People can be made aware of the Fat Studies theory of societal production and become fat activists fat-conscious allies (or fat) operating in solidarity on their behalf. If they seize the means of weight/health-relevant cultural and material production of society and Man, they will usher in fat-based equity that will eventually ripen into fat-based justice (a kind of social justice) through the inversion of praxis.
It’s extremely important to understand Marxism on this general level so that what we’re dealing with around us in the world can be properly understood, called out for what it is, and prevented from achieving its ultimately destructive goal of seizing the means of production of anything, especially Man and History. Understanding these “theories” for what they really are not only allows us to call them out accurately and understand why they must be stopped, but it also allows us to be strategic in our fight against them because it enables us to easily predict their next moves and to delegitimize their manipulations as quickly as they arise. Failure to understand them this way means continually being taken off-guard, losing, and being manipulated, or—more accurately and through the inversion of their praxis—being exploited, estranged, and disenfranchised from our own societies.”
This was the result of a male student ‘self-id’ing into a female sport locker room. The female child that complained about having a male perv on them and her Father were both subject to censure and school disciplinary procedures, including attempting to compel their speech and actions. Thankfully that bullshit was stopped dead in its tracks.
I am the mother of the trans student in question and my [son] daughter did not make any comments at all. The entire team can back this up, other than the girl that made up the story for attention.
This is slander, defamation of character, and we have secured a lawyer….
Travis responded:
I am the father of the girl you claim “made up a story for attention.” The truth is your son watched my daughter and multiple other girls change in the locker room. While he got a free show they got violated.
You think this is fine and dandy. I wonder how you would feel if I watched you undress?
For that transgression school officials demanded that Travis apologize, and ended a contract it had with him as coach of the school’s girls’ soccer team.
Claimed the ADF in its lawsuit:
The First Amendment does not countenance this kind of government censorship, where a public school mandates that students and coaches refrain from expressing any view that offends its prescribed views, particularly on an issue as important as whether the school should permit males identifying as girls to undress, shower and change in the girls’ locker room.
Travis and Blake Allen were entitled to express their views on that issue and, in expressing those views, to support them with what is a biological fact — that a biological teenage male is, indeed, a male.
This case presents a textbook example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, and Plaintiffs are entitled to all appropriate relief.
ADF summed up their argument:
By requiring Blake Allen to take part in a “restorative circle” to help her “understand the rights of students to access public accommodations … in a manner consistent with their gender identity” and “submit a reflective essay” that meets Defendants’ own standards in order to avoid additional out-of-school suspension, Defendants are seeking to compel her to speak in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
By requiring Travis Allen to issue a public apology for his September 29 Facebook post as a condition to be reinstated as a coach, Defendants are seeking to compel him to speak in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The state of Vermont has created this problem by its willingness to buy into the current fad of “transgenderism.” It states that
- All students have a gender identity which is self-determined;
- All persons, including students attending school, have privacy rights.
Vermont defines “transgender” as “an individual whose gender identity or gender expression is different from the individual’s assigned sex at birth.”
Conflict is therefore inevitable, yet it never existed when the Genesis account was considered the basis of all law. Genesis 1:27, if Vermont state officials would follow it, eliminates the conflict: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them.”
After reviewing the lawsuit, school officials backed down. Said ADF: “Shortly after filing the lawsuit, counsel for the school officials notified ADF attorneys that the superintendent was rescinding the disciplinary actions.”
Score one for the good guys.
Women putting it all on the line to oppose a totalitarian theocratic regime. This is what bravery is.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…