The pendulum may be starting to swing back toward a more moderate incremental embrace of change within the school systems of North America. We, thankfully, are starting to move away from ‘tearing down the old ways’ to acknowledging that the old ways were put in place for a reason and perhaps a more nuanced pace of change would benefit everyone in the school system.
“For decades, there was a general push and pull in the education world between progressives and traditionalists. The math wars stretch back at least to debates over California’s state curriculum in the 1990s. The phonics versus whole language debate began in the 1950s, and traditionalists have many times declared that phonics won. John Dewey first theorized a progressive education built on rationalist grounds in the early twentieth century, building on Jean Jacques Rousseau before him. As with old truths rediscovered, these are old debates as well.
Most recently, school systems embraced deconstructionism under pressure from anti-racist activists during Covid, imploring them to tear down old structures of discipline, instruction, testing, and curriculum. Traditionalists retreated while progressives advanced. Alas, an education system that forwent the basic truths of human nature was bound to fail, and schools are relearning old lessons.
In their renunciation of admissions tests, universities stumbled on the wisdom of the thought experiment “Chesterton’s Fence.” The purchaser of a new property, the idea goes, shouldn’t tear down a fence simply because they are unaware of its use. If they do, they may find snow drifts blocking their windows or wolves among the sheep. It is a call to respect the wisdom in existing institutions, but also a plea for intellectual humility. We may not know what’s best, so it is wise to respect those who came before.
What we need instead is a rediscovery of fundamentals, an acknowledgment that the old ways work, and a realization that if we sweep away everything old and try to reimagine something better, we will have swept away everything of value.”
I recommend going to Law & Liberty and reading the entire essay, as it advocates a reasonable way forward for Education in North America.
I would like to thank the IOC and these two fine individuals for illustrating the endpoint of what transgender ideology is. The erasure of females from the public sphere.
The last two days have been a revelation for me having gone down the Social Media rabbit hole on the males in female sport issue. What was most jaw dropping was the absolute conviction and dedication to a narrative that is most likely false. Both boxers Khelif and Lin Yu-ting did not meet the requirements for being female. Link here.
So, if one were to follow the available evidence a reasonable assumption could be made that both Khelif and Lin Yu-ting are male. They may present as female, but a male with a disorder of sexual development remains male. The ARD5 DSD is a likely diagnosis as detail by Dr. Emma Hilton:
So, the evidence available points toward both boxers being male. You would think though that if they were female they would submit the cheek swab that would end all of this controversy for good. Yet neither has. Funny how that works.
Take a gander at the discourse around the Olympic Boxing debacle. False narratives rather than facts are being propagated at an alarming pace. Here is a FAQ intended to clear up the questions around this boxing scandal.
1. “L & K are just women with high testosterone!” Khelif and Lin were never tested for their testosterone levels. The claims that they were disqualified from the 2023 Women’s World Boxing Championship due to simple testosterone abnormalities were made by their respective national sporting bodies, who, obviously, have some motivation to lie here.
AAAA
2. “L & K have female ID!” Khelif and Lin are not believed to be transgender, and @ReduxxMag made that VERY clear in our July 28 article. They are believed to be impacted by a Difference of Sexual Development, in which there is a developmental abnormality in secondary sex characteristics. This is a medical condition which can manifest with children being born with ambiguous or disfigured genitalia. Male children impacted by DSDs are often “assigned female at birth” due to these genital defects, as there is a genuine assumption they are girls. Thus, their identification documents would be completely irrelevant in this case. As is the fact they were “raised as girls.” That’s entirely expected for male children with DSDs. Even more so for male children with DSDs in socially conservative countries. Is a boy without a penis more likely to be raised as a boy or a girl?
Exactly. 3. “The IBA never said they had XY chromosomes!” On March 25, 2023, IBA President Umar Kremlev said that the boxers disqualified at the championships had XY chromosomes. He said this in a statement to TASS News. There were only two boxers disqualified at the championships: Lin and Khelif.
4. “But Kremlev could be lying!” Over the last 72 hours, the IBA has released two separate statements confirming that Khelif and Lin were not subject to testosterone testing, but had instead been subjected to a separate test validated by two independent laboratories. That test confirmed they were not eligible to compete in women’s boxing as per the IBA guidelines. Crucially, the IBA defines “woman” as “an individual with XX chromosomes.” In their guidelines, they also indicate that the gender tests they use to determine if a person is eligible to compete with women is a chromosomal test, not a hormone test. In their second statement, the IBA condemned the IOC for allowing Khelif and Lin to proceed as they believed it was putting female boxers at risk and that they did not support “boxing between the genders.”
5. “Why doesn’t the IBA release the test!” They cannot. It is protected medical information. They would be sued. Khelif and Lin, however, can agree to have the laboratories release those tests themselves… Why haven’t they?
6. “The IBA didn’t let L & K appeal their disqualification!” Yes they did. They have no choice in the matter. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is a fully independent tribunal which oversees all disputes in elite athletics. Every athlete has a right to bring a case to the CAS. Lin did not challenge the disqualification. Khelif challenged the disqualification but withdrew the appeal before it could proceed through the court. Please ask yourself why. If they were genuinely female, why would they have chosen to refuse their opportunity to establish that in an irrefutable and legally binding way at a fully independent venue? Literally none of this would have happened had they simply submitted their tests to the CAS. Buuuut… Consider that all decisions at the CAS are public information. It was through a CAS challenge that the world became aware that Caster Semenya had XY chromosomes, for example. If Khelif and Lin had proceeded through the CAS, there would have been irrefutable evidence, documented by an independent body, that they were either male or female. So why? Why did they not want the CAS to examine their tests? Why did they not want this information to be public? I think the reason is obvious.
7. “But the IOC approved their eligibility for 2024!” The IOC stopped sex testing athletes in 1999. Since then, they have deferred to individual sporting bodies to ensure athletes were eligible. HOWEVER, for the purposes of the 2024 Paris Olympics, there is no formal oversight body for boxing. This is the first time this ever happened. As a result, the IOC created an ad-hoc boxing unit to temporarily oversee the boxing competitions in Paris. This unit has no guidelines for gender eligibility, and has apparently just been allowing boxers to compete “as females” if they have female gender markers on their passports/legal documents.
8. “The IBA is corrupt and cannot be trusted!” The IOC has long had an issue with the IBA because the IBA has refused to disqualify Russian athletes on the basis of their national identity. Claims of the IBA’s “corruption” can basically be summarized to “Russia bad, Russians evil.” The IBA has literally no history of bullshitting about the sex of boxers involved and it doesn’t benefit them in any kind of way to do so.
9. “The IBA only disqualified L & K because they beat Russian boxers at the 2023 championships!” No they did not. I started seeing this weird, completely false claim circulating over the last 24 hours. Khelif beat Thailand’s Janjaem Suwannapheng and was set to compete against China’s Yang Liu for gold in the Welterweight category. Lin beat Bulgaria’s Svetlana Kamenova Staneva for bronze in the Featherweight category. They were scheduled to fight no Russian boxers in either one of their categories, and only one Russian boxer won a gold medal in the entire championship (Anastasiia Demurchian, Light Middleweight). India won the most gold medals (4) at the 2023 Women’s Championship. China won the most medals overall (7). Kazakhstan won the second most medals overall (6). Russia only won 3 medals at the championship. Also worth noting that another Taiwanese boxer, Huang Hsiao-wen, won gold in the Bantamweight category. So for all the Taiwanese mouthpieces claiming Lin’s disqualification was just “discrimination against Taiwan”… lol no.
10. “L & K were only singled out because they don’t look feminine!” This idea that Lin and Khelif were singled out for not meeting some “western feminine beauty standard” is atrocious and quite easily refutable when you look at literally any of their competitors, most of whom do not meet that arbitrary standard themselves because boxing is a physically demanding sport for robust people, male or female. Below is Khadija El-Mardi of Morocco, for example, who likely would be accused of failing to meet this supposed “western feminine beauty standard.” El-Mardi won gold in the Heavyweight category at the 2023 World Championships. She is advancing to the quarter-finals in Paris as we speak. She’s one of the best female boxers out there. She is a woman. Her features and tall stature literally do not matter. She is biologically female. Sex testing would return an XX. Women are adult human females. This is true regardless of their external appearance. Likewise, men are adult human males. This is true regardless of abnormalities or defects in their secondary sex characteristics.”
Picking on Christians is fair game. The rules of ‘being offended’ don’t seem to apply to certain groups in society. Just imagine if one of the sacred castes were lampooned. We’d be hearing about the “x”-phobia and hate for weeks.
A snippet from Spiked Online’s Brendan O’Neill
“Christians are angry. As well they might be. This was ‘extremely disrespectful to Christians’, said Elon Musk. Now, naturally, there’s a backlash against the backlash. Calm down, the woke are saying. Stop being such prudes and snowflakes, they’re chortling. It’s just a little light mockery, they’re insisting. Which is big talk from a section of society that would be weeping into its keffiyehs and demanding heads on spikes if the ceremony had featured a drag-act Muhammad being served a smurf on a plate of fruit with his cock out.
For me – a non-prude and non-snowflake who fully supports the liberty of blasphemy – the question is not ‘How could you disparage Christ like this?!’, but ‘Why would you disparage Christ like this?’. At an Olympics opening ceremony. In front of a billion viewers (well, until we switched off). I have no problem with drag acts in Soho, or Le Marais, of course. But at the opening ceremony to an international celebration of human brotherhood? I’m fine with mockery of religious idols and beliefs, if that’s what you want to do. But at the Olympic Games? Why? Why sully this ancient competition with the infantile Christ-bashing of the conformist godless drones of the modern culture industry?”
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…