Gaye Chapman and her friends give us the sight of lesbians celebrating Pride while being actual lesbians! Keep rocking, Gaye! White people cosplaying at being an oppressed class Vindication for a brilliant woman I spoke to Stephanie to show what the wider stakes are in my fight to free Father Ted from the activists holding it hostage. I will not allow my work to support, even indirectly, the harm currently being done to gender non-conforming, gay and autistic children because of a ludicrous, misogynist, homophobic ideology. I am astonished that Sonia Friedman Productions and Hat Trick would want to risk equal harm being done to their reputation. When the mist clears and more people see the medical and institutional scandal JK Rowling and I, and many others, have been trying to bring to their attention to for six years, they are going to start asking why we received no support from the colleagues who should have been the first to our side.
Gregor Murray of Dundee wrote the following to me when I wrote to the Council to complain about people being encouraged to self-id to use the auditorium level toilets at Dundee Repertory Theatre and the installation of gender-neutral toilets in local schools:
“Thank you for highlighting such amazing, progressive work going on across Dundee. As the former convenor responsible for schools, and as a non-binary person, I was aware of both of these fantastic pieces of work, and I do hope that more companies follow suit. When you sent this email on Saturday, I was standing in Slessor Gardens, celebrating love, acceptance and tolerance, and together we can make this city a shining example for trans and cis people everywhere.”
Yes, he is a dick. I don't know whether it's delusion, contrivance or idiocy that makes people like him talk about tolerance, acceptance and love. I can't believe he is so devoid of self awareness. Obviously, he knows exactly what he's doing and what's happening. He's is relying on people being a combination of cowardly compliant or unashamedly misogynistic and allowing him to do and say what he wants
I wrote back to him suggesting his response wasn’t helpful and pointing out that several founding members of Stonewall shared my concerns about the erosion of women’s rights. I then received this:
“Misrepresenting Stonewall's stance on Trans issues or women's rights does not help this.”
The guy being interviewed by Matt Walsh is lying and he knows it. He touches his face and even covers his own mouth in an unconscious gesture before diverting attention to Matt painting him as an aggressor to try and transfer the discomfort he feels from lying from himself to Matt as the cause.
The rest of this stuff just makes me sick. And angry. So angry I make the Hulk look like a rank effing amateur in rage.
Jesus there are some savage bastards out there. The worst Republicans on GETTR aren't even half as mental as this lot. Anybody who claims to be liberal and supports this shit should hang their head in shame.
They're bigoted, intolerant authoritarians who have somehow managed to maintain a vaneer of liberalism. But it works just fine when the people they're addressing are just like them.
Go ,Girls ,in spite of the TQ++++.👍👏! I've seen the Matt Walsh video in full and the interviews with the professionals were JAW DROPPING , mostly. They're completely captured and in total denial of science ,biology and ALL evidence based knowledge. A female PAEDIATRICIAN even said that The TRUTH is TRANSPHOBIC.😱😱😱 Unbelievable !!!
But, as a further egregious example of that, did you see this recent Daily Mail article?
"You can't define 'woman', civil servants are told in equality training video which says phrase 'adult human female' can be transphobic and there is 'no conflict' between women's and transgender rights."
But those "civil servants" should be fired - if not hung, drawn, and quartered, figuratively speaking of course ... - for being absolutely clueless about the most basic elements of "science, biology and all evidenced based knowledge". As Susan put it. 🙂
Though "philosopher" Kathleen Stock seems to struggle with those same basic elements as - in her Material Girls, though haven't read it myself - she lists some 3 different perspectives on the definitions for the sexes while apparently being totally clueless about the biological ones:
Thank you for all this interesting links. The Daily Mail has joined The Times to fight against this insane capture which is what led me away from the sick-making Guardian to The Times.
With regard to what Kathleen Stock says, there are certain instances where the distinction is nebulous. For instance, sometimes men, who have children with a woman are found to have a womb in their body. However, this serves no purpose and does not take away from masculinity.
I should actually like to add one more difference between men and women: the skeleton. Whenever ancient skeletons have been recovered, there has never been any ambiguity as to whether it is a male or female skeleton, which means that no amount of reassignment surgery will change this difference.
Sadly, in future, any transsexual skeleton will be readily spotted thanks to its brittle bones, caused by puberty blockers.
👍 My pleasure; share the wealth; praise the lord and pass the ammunition. 🙂
But quite agree on "insane capture", and "the sick-making Guardian" - a "yellow-press" if there ever was one, though they periodically have more or less decent articles. Apropos of "The Times", you probably have a subscription and have probably seen this recent article there by Janice Turner who's doing yeoman's - yeowoman's? 🙂 - duty holding the feet of the "captured" to the fire, figuratively speaking of course 😉:
Not sure how long the share token is good for, but GC News tends to be "johnny-on-the-spot" in publishing various archive links, to The Times in particular.
Likewise agree on "the distinction is nebulous", though there are more than a few devils in those details. For instance, this case of a "woman" - XY chromosomes, functional uterus, though no ovaries - giving birth to twins:
While I'm not sure how credible the Express is, I've seen the story published elsewhere by other more or less credible sources.
But that raises the question of just what is THE essential property to qualify any organism - of any sexually-reproducing species - as a male or as a female. Decent elaboration on the difference between essential and "accidental" properties here:
Basically, chromosomes are not essential properties, only accidental ones: more than a few human females who have Y chromosomes while still meeting the criteria stipulated by the biological definitions for such:
Not to mention the fact that many species don't even use X & Y chromosomes while still having males and females - i.e., those who produce either of two types of gametes:
But, as Matt Walsh's recent documentary on "What Is A Woman?" illustrates - even if somewhat inadvertently, many people don't seem to realize that there's generally some rhyme and reason to how and why we define categories the way we do. That the most sensible and credible, if not only viable definition for "woman" - i.e., "adult human female (produces ova)" - is predicated on "male" and "female" being what are called "natural kinds":
"Scientific disciplines frequently divide the particulars they study into kinds and theorize about those kinds. To say that a kind is natural is to say that it corresponds to a grouping that reflects the structure of the natural world rather than the interests and actions of human beings."
Hard not to reach the conclusion that those-who-can-reproduce-because-they-produce-ova and that those-who-can-reproduce-because-they-produce-sperm - regardless of which of literally millions of species they're members of - have to qualify as something in the way of bedrock "natural kinds" that reflect foundational "structures [or processes] of the natural world". Which is always the case however we want to name those particular kinds or categories; words are just labels that denote those facts - we, biologists, could have called those categories "oviferousians" and "seminiferousians" and the ability to reproduce would still have been true:
But rather distressing if not depressing that so many - including those who should know better - seem bound and determined to try sweeping those brute facts under the carpet.
"brittle bones, caused by puberty blockers."
🙂 Sad, but true. Part and parcel of the rather odious "medical scandal unfolding in plain sight":
Wow, thank you for your fascinating response. A long time ago, there was a Scientific American article on the varieties of sex. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/ However, I would dispute that this gives us a spectrum because the bottom line was always that only women can give birth, regardless of what a man may possess inside himself. I think those glitches happen when the male sex finally develops in the womb. Not everything is tidied up. But it's still clear, 'adult human female' is the simple and perfectly adequate definition.
Let's see how people at large react when some of those perverts start re-defining children, because this looks to be on the cards.
🙂 My pleasure. Fact of the matter is that a "full-court press" - a basketball term 🙂 - is going to be required to turn the transloonie tide. Some evidence, some reason to hope that we're at least past the end of the beginning 😉 of that process.
But the so-called "Scientific" American is another sad case of ideological capture. They too desperately refuse to face the facts about those "natural kinds". But Nature likewise has often jumped the shark:
Rather brilliant, if somewhat flawed takedown of that Nature article in one by Amanda MacLean at the Weekly Worker titled, quite appropriately, "Decoupled from Reality":
Couple of particularly brilliant insights therefrom:
"Genderist ideology is based on flawed science and worse logic, argues Amanda MacLean"
"Reductionist disciplines that look at different parts of organisms - such as genes, tissues, physiology or neurobiology - use the words ‘male’ and ‘female’ as shorthand for ‘of males/females’ or ‘typical of males/females’. ...."
As I've often argued departing from that observation, there's no such thing as, for example, an actual "female brain". There are brains OF females or that are TYPICAL OF females - even if only marginally so in the case of some transwomen. But the latter case hardly justifies the bogus and quite risible if not totally demented claim that such transwomen are thereby actually adult human females, AKA "women".
There is now a decades-long history of science denialism, which is why I urge people to read The Real Anthony Fauci. Celia Farber, who wrote a book about AIDS, points to a specific time in 1984 when SCIENCE DIED. I finally understood why health care has deteriorated so much during my lifetime, why doctors are such parasites, why so many chronic health conditions are a mystery to said parasites.
"Jones, who identifies as female, groomed the child discussing gender issues."
Well, colour me astonished! Who could possibly have seen that coming?
Putting the "T" alongside the LGB is the handiest tool in the paedophile's kit. ie: If you "have" to talk to kids about the "T" (because what child doesn't need to hear some made-up shit about a floaty inner thing that doesn't match their body?) then you can also talk to them about the LGB (because what kid doesn't need some creepy sweat-sack who calls himself a woman, talking about sexual attraction?)
Of course they refer to the abductor as "she" in the article because heaven forbid a dangerous paedophile should be misgendered. I am so sick of this shit.
That tweet from Kyle Maxwell about Walsh's documentary - "What is a woman?" - is indeed "hilarious". And Maxwell's comment - "utterly insane scene" - is right on the money.
But a rather brilliant documentary, even if somewhat flawed - that more people need to be watching. Those without a subscription to the Daily Wire might want to do a search on the "Odysee" site which should yield several postings thereof:
But a nice summary of that segment from Substacker Holly Math Nerd who generally has some quite credible insights even if she seems unwilling to countenance much in the way of any criticisms:
"The college professor Walsh interviews, who pronounces the concept of truth to be 'deeply transphobic,' as well as 'condescending and rude' was the best example of how far gone academia is that I’ve ever seen."
👍 De nada; share the wealth; praise the lord and pass the ammunition. 🙂
Though I hope you found a copy - I'm a bit reluctant to post a direct link to the actual documentary but will do so if necessary. Though I agree with you about signing up to the Daily Wire - they clearly do some good work, but I think they have a number of questionable biases themselves. And there are other subscriptions that I think give more bang for the buck ... 😉
But a case in point being where Walsh gives some evidence of thinking that sex and gender are synonymous; a fairly common misperception muddying the waters:
But haven't watched all of the documentary yet myself, and don't recollect exactly where he says this, but at one point I think he says something along the line of "gender assigned at birth". The transgender clusterfuck isn't helped much when so many people - including Helen Joyce - are using the same words - "gender" - in particular in two entirely different and quite antithetical ways.
Kinda think that a large part of gender is incoherent twaddle at best - "gender identity" in particular, but there appears to be some elements with at least some potential scientific justification, credibility, and utility. Nice differentiation between sex (biology) and gender (psychology) here in an editorial at the British Medical Journal, even if there's a fly or two in that "ointment" of theirs:
"Distinction is critical for good healthcare:
Sex and gender are not synonymous. Sex, unless otherwise specified, relates to biology: the gametes, chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender relates to societal roles, behaviours, and expectations that vary with time and place, historically and geographically. These categories describe different attributes that must be considered depending on the purpose they are intended for. The World Health Organization states, 'Gender is used to describe the characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed, while sex refers to those that are biologically determined.' ...."
"Alexandra Scott Billings (born March 28, 1962) is an American actress, teacher, singer, and activist. Billings is the second openly transgender woman to have played a transgender character on television .... Billings started her male to female transition in 1980."
Nice that the video posted by Peeps says "actor" - though cutting one's dick off to "immerse" oneself in a part seems a bit extreme, a case of being more Catholic than the Pope ...
But I'm rather "peeved" at Wikipedia for their "transgender woman" phrase. Far more honest would be to say "male transvestite" is "she" still has her dick, or "sexless eunuch" if not. Or even "transwoman".
However, their "male to female transition" is egregious bait-and-switch - "she" has changed her gender, not her sex - if not outright rank insanity, and flagrant Lysenkoism - the "deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable".
Something that Wikipedia frequently seems to indulge in, at least on anything to do with gender, another case in point being their article on transwoman and Olympian Laurel Hubbard where they make the same bogus claim: "transitioned to female". My "tale of woe" about being "deplatformed" there for objecting to that phrasing and that Lysenkoism:
When listening to these ranting speeches and reframed backstories it's the convenient phrases and excuses they've developed. 'I spent time in jail' is this nice phrase used a lot. So it was because he was trans and marginalised and some nasty people were nasty to him? They just swept him off the street one day to be mean. Nothing to do with having done something, anything, that may have possibly broken a law or two? Just be honest. All this smoke and mirrors dressing that up as some human rights act of defiance is foul. And men commit crimes because they're trans yeah yeah. They're so persecuted.
The skirting around actual events to reframe them into whatever people want removes credibility. It's another 'I want it to be what I want, so it is, and you're not allowed to point that out.'
That has nothing to do with recidivism, rehabilitation, what used to be calling 'going straight' or our criminal justice systems.
Don't count on it. There have been a number of investigations into Anthony Fauci's maiming and murder of black and brown children -- both legislative and media investigations -- and he's still doing the same stuff. Until we completely overhaul our medical-industrial systems -- and I don't think I'll live to see that -- the abuse / medicalization of young people will continue.
Gregor Murray of Dundee wrote the following to me when I wrote to the Council to complain about people being encouraged to self-id to use the auditorium level toilets at Dundee Repertory Theatre and the installation of gender-neutral toilets in local schools:
“Thank you for highlighting such amazing, progressive work going on across Dundee. As the former convenor responsible for schools, and as a non-binary person, I was aware of both of these fantastic pieces of work, and I do hope that more companies follow suit. When you sent this email on Saturday, I was standing in Slessor Gardens, celebrating love, acceptance and tolerance, and together we can make this city a shining example for trans and cis people everywhere.”
What a dick.
Yes, he is a dick. I don't know whether it's delusion, contrivance or idiocy that makes people like him talk about tolerance, acceptance and love. I can't believe he is so devoid of self awareness. Obviously, he knows exactly what he's doing and what's happening. He's is relying on people being a combination of cowardly compliant or unashamedly misogynistic and allowing him to do and say what he wants
I wrote back to him suggesting his response wasn’t helpful and pointing out that several founding members of Stonewall shared my concerns about the erosion of women’s rights. I then received this:
“Misrepresenting Stonewall's stance on Trans issues or women's rights does not help this.”
As I said, dick.
What an arsehole! Won’t be going to Dundee any time soon.
Do, it’s a wonderful city. Everywhere has arseholes.
The guy being interviewed by Matt Walsh is lying and he knows it. He touches his face and even covers his own mouth in an unconscious gesture before diverting attention to Matt painting him as an aggressor to try and transfer the discomfort he feels from lying from himself to Matt as the cause.
The rest of this stuff just makes me sick. And angry. So angry I make the Hulk look like a rank effing amateur in rage.
Jesus there are some savage bastards out there. The worst Republicans on GETTR aren't even half as mental as this lot. Anybody who claims to be liberal and supports this shit should hang their head in shame.
They're bigoted, intolerant authoritarians who have somehow managed to maintain a vaneer of liberalism. But it works just fine when the people they're addressing are just like them.
Go ,Girls ,in spite of the TQ++++.👍👏! I've seen the Matt Walsh video in full and the interviews with the professionals were JAW DROPPING , mostly. They're completely captured and in total denial of science ,biology and ALL evidence based knowledge. A female PAEDIATRICIAN even said that The TRUTH is TRANSPHOBIC.😱😱😱 Unbelievable !!!
They don't even seem to know what they're actually saying. Have they been hypnotised? Insane. And yes, the 'girls' are great!
Zombies; "pod people":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pod_People_(Invasion_of_the_Body_Snatchers)
https://stevetobak.com/2017/02/24/invasion-pc-pod-people/
But, as a further egregious example of that, did you see this recent Daily Mail article?
"You can't define 'woman', civil servants are told in equality training video which says phrase 'adult human female' can be transphobic and there is 'no conflict' between women's and transgender rights."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10884961/You-define-woman-civil-servants-told-equality-training-video.html
Link courtesy of GC News (worth a follow, particularly since it's free 🙂):
https://gcnews.substack.com/p/saturday-june-4-2022?s=r
But those "civil servants" should be fired - if not hung, drawn, and quartered, figuratively speaking of course ... - for being absolutely clueless about the most basic elements of "science, biology and all evidenced based knowledge". As Susan put it. 🙂
Though "philosopher" Kathleen Stock seems to struggle with those same basic elements as - in her Material Girls, though haven't read it myself - she lists some 3 different perspectives on the definitions for the sexes while apparently being totally clueless about the biological ones:
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/06/01/the-friendly-atheist-becomes-the-misleading-atheist/#comment-1997726
Thank you for all this interesting links. The Daily Mail has joined The Times to fight against this insane capture which is what led me away from the sick-making Guardian to The Times.
With regard to what Kathleen Stock says, there are certain instances where the distinction is nebulous. For instance, sometimes men, who have children with a woman are found to have a womb in their body. However, this serves no purpose and does not take away from masculinity.
I should actually like to add one more difference between men and women: the skeleton. Whenever ancient skeletons have been recovered, there has never been any ambiguity as to whether it is a male or female skeleton, which means that no amount of reassignment surgery will change this difference.
Sadly, in future, any transsexual skeleton will be readily spotted thanks to its brittle bones, caused by puberty blockers.
👍 My pleasure; share the wealth; praise the lord and pass the ammunition. 🙂
But quite agree on "insane capture", and "the sick-making Guardian" - a "yellow-press" if there ever was one, though they periodically have more or less decent articles. Apropos of "The Times", you probably have a subscription and have probably seen this recent article there by Janice Turner who's doing yeoman's - yeowoman's? 🙂 - duty holding the feet of the "captured" to the fire, figuratively speaking of course 😉:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9484c55a-e372-11ec-baab-53d14c642149?shareToken=aee0427ee30c2e8a33f31079c7c3f21f
Not sure how long the share token is good for, but GC News tends to be "johnny-on-the-spot" in publishing various archive links, to The Times in particular.
Likewise agree on "the distinction is nebulous", though there are more than a few devils in those details. For instance, this case of a "woman" - XY chromosomes, functional uterus, though no ovaries - giving birth to twins:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/555386/Woman-born-no-womb-gives-birth-twins-after-hormone-treatment
While I'm not sure how credible the Express is, I've seen the story published elsewhere by other more or less credible sources.
But that raises the question of just what is THE essential property to qualify any organism - of any sexually-reproducing species - as a male or as a female. Decent elaboration on the difference between essential and "accidental" properties here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
Basically, chromosomes are not essential properties, only accidental ones: more than a few human females who have Y chromosomes while still meeting the criteria stipulated by the biological definitions for such:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/
Not to mention the fact that many species don't even use X & Y chromosomes while still having males and females - i.e., those who produce either of two types of gametes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determination_system
But, as Matt Walsh's recent documentary on "What Is A Woman?" illustrates - even if somewhat inadvertently, many people don't seem to realize that there's generally some rhyme and reason to how and why we define categories the way we do. That the most sensible and credible, if not only viable definition for "woman" - i.e., "adult human female (produces ova)" - is predicated on "male" and "female" being what are called "natural kinds":
"Scientific disciplines frequently divide the particulars they study into kinds and theorize about those kinds. To say that a kind is natural is to say that it corresponds to a grouping that reflects the structure of the natural world rather than the interests and actions of human beings."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-kinds/
Hard not to reach the conclusion that those-who-can-reproduce-because-they-produce-ova and that those-who-can-reproduce-because-they-produce-sperm - regardless of which of literally millions of species they're members of - have to qualify as something in the way of bedrock "natural kinds" that reflect foundational "structures [or processes] of the natural world". Which is always the case however we want to name those particular kinds or categories; words are just labels that denote those facts - we, biologists, could have called those categories "oviferousians" and "seminiferousians" and the ability to reproduce would still have been true:
https://www.lexico.com/definition/oviferous
But rather distressing if not depressing that so many - including those who should know better - seem bound and determined to try sweeping those brute facts under the carpet.
"brittle bones, caused by puberty blockers."
🙂 Sad, but true. Part and parcel of the rather odious "medical scandal unfolding in plain sight":
https://kathleenstock.substack.com/p/entering-the-parallel-universe-of?s=r
Wow, thank you for your fascinating response. A long time ago, there was a Scientific American article on the varieties of sex. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/ However, I would dispute that this gives us a spectrum because the bottom line was always that only women can give birth, regardless of what a man may possess inside himself. I think those glitches happen when the male sex finally develops in the womb. Not everything is tidied up. But it's still clear, 'adult human female' is the simple and perfectly adequate definition.
Let's see how people at large react when some of those perverts start re-defining children, because this looks to be on the cards.
🙂 My pleasure. Fact of the matter is that a "full-court press" - a basketball term 🙂 - is going to be required to turn the transloonie tide. Some evidence, some reason to hope that we're at least past the end of the beginning 😉 of that process.
But the so-called "Scientific" American is another sad case of ideological capture. They too desperately refuse to face the facts about those "natural kinds". But Nature likewise has often jumped the shark:
https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a#/spectrum
Rather brilliant, if somewhat flawed takedown of that Nature article in one by Amanda MacLean at the Weekly Worker titled, quite appropriately, "Decoupled from Reality":
https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1247/decoupled-from-reality/
Couple of particularly brilliant insights therefrom:
"Genderist ideology is based on flawed science and worse logic, argues Amanda MacLean"
"Reductionist disciplines that look at different parts of organisms - such as genes, tissues, physiology or neurobiology - use the words ‘male’ and ‘female’ as shorthand for ‘of males/females’ or ‘typical of males/females’. ...."
As I've often argued departing from that observation, there's no such thing as, for example, an actual "female brain". There are brains OF females or that are TYPICAL OF females - even if only marginally so in the case of some transwomen. But the latter case hardly justifies the bogus and quite risible if not totally demented claim that such transwomen are thereby actually adult human females, AKA "women".
There is now a decades-long history of science denialism, which is why I urge people to read The Real Anthony Fauci. Celia Farber, who wrote a book about AIDS, points to a specific time in 1984 when SCIENCE DIED. I finally understood why health care has deteriorated so much during my lifetime, why doctors are such parasites, why so many chronic health conditions are a mystery to said parasites.
"Jones, who identifies as female, groomed the child discussing gender issues."
Well, colour me astonished! Who could possibly have seen that coming?
Putting the "T" alongside the LGB is the handiest tool in the paedophile's kit. ie: If you "have" to talk to kids about the "T" (because what child doesn't need to hear some made-up shit about a floaty inner thing that doesn't match their body?) then you can also talk to them about the LGB (because what kid doesn't need some creepy sweat-sack who calls himself a woman, talking about sexual attraction?)
Of course they refer to the abductor as "she" in the article because heaven forbid a dangerous paedophile should be misgendered. I am so sick of this shit.
That tweet from Kyle Maxwell about Walsh's documentary - "What is a woman?" - is indeed "hilarious". And Maxwell's comment - "utterly insane scene" - is right on the money.
But a rather brilliant documentary, even if somewhat flawed - that more people need to be watching. Those without a subscription to the Daily Wire might want to do a search on the "Odysee" site which should yield several postings thereof:
https://odysee.com/
But a nice summary of that segment from Substacker Holly Math Nerd who generally has some quite credible insights even if she seems unwilling to countenance much in the way of any criticisms:
https://hollymathnerd.substack.com/p/what-is-what-is-a-woman?s=r
"The college professor Walsh interviews, who pronounces the concept of truth to be 'deeply transphobic,' as well as 'condescending and rude' was the best example of how far gone academia is that I’ve ever seen."
Amen to that, lady, amen to that.
👍 De nada; share the wealth; praise the lord and pass the ammunition. 🙂
Though I hope you found a copy - I'm a bit reluctant to post a direct link to the actual documentary but will do so if necessary. Though I agree with you about signing up to the Daily Wire - they clearly do some good work, but I think they have a number of questionable biases themselves. And there are other subscriptions that I think give more bang for the buck ... 😉
But a case in point being where Walsh gives some evidence of thinking that sex and gender are synonymous; a fairly common misperception muddying the waters:
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/09/21/ben-carson-reacts-to-being-called-a-bigot-for-saying-there-are-2-genders-828045/
But haven't watched all of the documentary yet myself, and don't recollect exactly where he says this, but at one point I think he says something along the line of "gender assigned at birth". The transgender clusterfuck isn't helped much when so many people - including Helen Joyce - are using the same words - "gender" - in particular in two entirely different and quite antithetical ways.
Kinda think that a large part of gender is incoherent twaddle at best - "gender identity" in particular, but there appears to be some elements with at least some potential scientific justification, credibility, and utility. Nice differentiation between sex (biology) and gender (psychology) here in an editorial at the British Medical Journal, even if there's a fly or two in that "ointment" of theirs:
"Distinction is critical for good healthcare:
Sex and gender are not synonymous. Sex, unless otherwise specified, relates to biology: the gametes, chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender relates to societal roles, behaviours, and expectations that vary with time and place, historically and geographically. These categories describe different attributes that must be considered depending on the purpose they are intended for. The World Health Organization states, 'Gender is used to describe the characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed, while sex refers to those that are biologically determined.' ...."
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n735
The Tweet by CrunchAlias has been deleted. Looks like this might be the tweet in the QT:
https://twitter.com/artistofpeeps/status/1531959005559640065
"Alexandra Scott Billings (born March 28, 1962) is an American actress, teacher, singer, and activist. Billings is the second openly transgender woman to have played a transgender character on television .... Billings started her male to female transition in 1980."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Billings
Nice that the video posted by Peeps says "actor" - though cutting one's dick off to "immerse" oneself in a part seems a bit extreme, a case of being more Catholic than the Pope ...
But I'm rather "peeved" at Wikipedia for their "transgender woman" phrase. Far more honest would be to say "male transvestite" is "she" still has her dick, or "sexless eunuch" if not. Or even "transwoman".
However, their "male to female transition" is egregious bait-and-switch - "she" has changed her gender, not her sex - if not outright rank insanity, and flagrant Lysenkoism - the "deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable".
Something that Wikipedia frequently seems to indulge in, at least on anything to do with gender, another case in point being their article on transwoman and Olympian Laurel Hubbard where they make the same bogus claim: "transitioned to female". My "tale of woe" about being "deplatformed" there for objecting to that phrasing and that Lysenkoism:
https://medium.com/@steersmann/wikipedias-lysenkoism-410901a22da2
When listening to these ranting speeches and reframed backstories it's the convenient phrases and excuses they've developed. 'I spent time in jail' is this nice phrase used a lot. So it was because he was trans and marginalised and some nasty people were nasty to him? They just swept him off the street one day to be mean. Nothing to do with having done something, anything, that may have possibly broken a law or two? Just be honest. All this smoke and mirrors dressing that up as some human rights act of defiance is foul. And men commit crimes because they're trans yeah yeah. They're so persecuted.
The skirting around actual events to reframe them into whatever people want removes credibility. It's another 'I want it to be what I want, so it is, and you're not allowed to point that out.'
That has nothing to do with recidivism, rehabilitation, what used to be calling 'going straight' or our criminal justice systems.
Love the comments on that mad clip. Thanks for sharing.
Don't count on it. There have been a number of investigations into Anthony Fauci's maiming and murder of black and brown children -- both legislative and media investigations -- and he's still doing the same stuff. Until we completely overhaul our medical-industrial systems -- and I don't think I'll live to see that -- the abuse / medicalization of young people will continue.