You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Transgender ideology’ tag.
Controversial topics are hard to talk about. What makes the process even more difficult is when one side, for whatever reason, decides that disagreeing with their position is equivalent to you *hating* their position.
The disagreement=hate confab is almost an exclusive feature of attempting to dialogue with someone on the Left of the political spectrum. I hesitate to use the Left/Right distinction though because the terms are not describing the political reality we now inhabit. Perhaps authoritarian vs anti-authoritarian might be a better way to describe positions these days.
Authoritarians whether on the Left or the Right seem to have a built in predisposition to thinking that their choice is the moral choice and that somehow by questioning their assertions you are questioning their morality or ethics.
It really isn’t that, at least not a first. One must grapple with the argument the person makes not the morality or ethics the person in question happens to hold.
An easy example is a person stating the fact that women, exclusively, are adult human females. The simple action of stating a fact can lead to accusations of hatred, discrimination, and even bigotry.
How does that even work? My hypothesis is that when you encounter the disagreement=hate trope the person that you are dealing with isn’t willing to put the thought or effort in to make a reasonable counter-argument. It is much easier to simply dismiss statements and thoughts that do not comport with what you hold to be true than do the work to properly refute them (also the statement in question may be closest to the truth and thus more accurate than your worldview).
Another issue is that your interlocutor may rate highly on the authoritarian scale. Woke ideologies like transgender ideology are totalizing, for them to reach their final stage *everyone* has to believe in the ideology. The utopian magic can’t happen until everyone is ideologically congruent thus wrong-thinkers must be converted or removed from the equation. If you are speaking against gender ideology -for the converted it simply must be “hate” – because the ideologue is convinced that their position is not only factually correct, but morally and ethically correct as well. Thus, the problem lies in you, not them as they have deep insight into the question, that gives them access to the “truth” and speaking against this “truth” must be hateful in nature.
It isn’t.
Being able to interrogate and critique ideas is part of the bedrock of a free society. We need to be able to objectively look at what people say and determine for ourselves the value of their arguments. Doing this now in society can be challenging precisely because questioning the orthodoxy is often misconstrued as “hatred”, thus speech and debate must be kept in check to stop the “hate” if one is to follow the reasoning from those who seek to limit speech in our society.
Limiting speech is such a completely terrible idea and we should really pause and consider the nature of so called progressive movements that advocate for the censure of speech in society.
Letter to the PM and Premier Doug Ford on the danger of “gender affirming care”. Share widely. 
Catch the article in the National Post.
Last November, the Post ran a column by transwoman Julia Malott who allegedly supports my right to free expression but simultaneously believes that my “persona” has devolved and that I’ve become divisive and resentful. The devolution, she wrote, occurred during my three-year-and-counting legal battle with the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives over my political speech on women’s rights and the binary nature of human sex.
The situation in Canada is dire; we are well beyond the point of change making via raising our hands to speak before whimpering politely towards a cacophony of rainbow-adorned tyrants. There are sexual predators that have been transferred from men’s to women’s prisons based on “gender identity” rather than anatomy. The same is true of rape shelters. Those born as males are competing in women’s sports categories. Hundreds of underage Canadian girls are being greenlighted for double mastectomies because they do not wish to be girls. Our health-care system continues to medicalize and transition gender non-conforming youth, despite the fact that other countries have realized this is a medical scandal not based on sound — or even any — evidence.
Canada’s self-identification policies, flowing from gender identity legislation, have enabled 50-year-old transwoman Melody Wiseheart, who began swimming under that name in 2019, to compete against and undress in the same changing room as little girls and teens. And for Kayla Lemieux to wear obscenely large prosthetic breasts with protruding nipples while teaching high school students. Tara Desousa, known pedophile, rapist, and murderer, transitioned while in prison and now resides in a B.C. prison that runs a mother-baby program.
Regulated professionals like me, or Jordan Peterson, are being sanctioned, punished, defamed, and censored for following truth, evidence, and our conscience — whether we are anodyne or not. And our court system, as Peterson has shown, may not afford any remedy. At this juncture, trying not to be “divisive” with our words is no different than waving a white flag. I refuse to equivocate over or sanitize the truth — and the provocation of an extremist minority is, to me, an acceptable side effect of my refusal to do so. They’re mad? So be it. I’m mad too.
Malott wrote that she “was struck by a sense of lost potential” and saw me as someone she could “possibly envisaged as a friend” — if only I hadn’t become so bitter and devolved as a result of my free speech battle. Well, I’m not fighting to make friends or hold ineffectual conversations.
Amy Hamm is a freelance writer and healthcare professional. She is co-founder of the nonpartisan Canadian Women’s Sex-Based Rights (caWsbar).
Trans rights activists have argued that trans people have a right to be recognised as their preferred gender in both the private and public spheres and that the law should protect this right.
Gender critical groups, however, claim that efforts to undermine single sex spaces put women’s safety at risk while attempts to police language on this issue constitute a threat freedom of speech.
This panel event disentangled this debate by giving speakers from both sides the opportunity to present their case for whether transgender ideology is necessary outgrowth of liberal values, or a threat to them.
On the Panel:
Peter Tatchell – Human rights campaigner and activist.
Freda Wallace – Political commentator, freelance writer and host of the Gender Nebulous podcast.
Helen Joyce – Former finance editor at the Economist, author of Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality and director of advocacy at Sex Matters.
Marc Glendening – Head of Cultural affairs at the IEA and author of the Transgender Ideology report published by the IEA in August.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…