Hmm, the Educate & Celebrate (i.e. Indoctrinate and Devastate) YouTube channel has no videos despite existing since 2015. If you want to see their ideology in action however, footage is available here.
That video is creepy AF. Grooming children into a cult. Even really young children. My parents were relaxed about nudity - us seeing them naked if we walked in on them in the bathroom, they gave us age appropriate sex education on a when we asked questions basis, we knew all the basics before we had our first sex ed classes in senior school aged about 13. I don't think I even knew gay sex was a thing until I was about 17, but I wasn't homophobic. Aged 21 I came across a trans person for the first time, a man in his twenties who was transitioning. I felt sorry for him as he seemed very unhappy. I don't know if he was on hormones or having surgery but this was the late 80s. I used to not even really think about trans people at all, there were so few, a rarity, but I don't recall them insisting that they were actual women like they do now. Very young children are now being told humans can actually change sex just by saying they are the sex they want to be, they are being lied to, groomed and manipulated. It feels dystopian and frightening, and I can't see a way out. I know the Tavistock has closed and I know Mermaids are being investigated but I don't think it will be the end of them, I can't see how the madness can be reversed.
I had openly gay friends in my 20s, I'd go clubbing with them to gay clubs because I felt safe, I knew I wouldn't face the same harassment I did in regular night clubs ( I don't think I'd feel safe in a LGBTQ club now thanks to the cult of trans). What I'm trying to say is, I didn't require "educating" about LGBTxyzabc123 as a child to grow into a respectful adult. I naturally gained knowledge as I grew up, and didn't grow up homophobic.
It's horrifying to me that children are being "educated" at younger and younger ages, but this grooming isn't just happening in schools, it's everywhere, children's tv, music, msm, sm, it's inescapable. It must be an impossible task for parents to shield their children from the hypersexualised world we now have, I thought it was bad enough when I was bringing my two children up in the late 90s - 2000s, the internet had a lot to answer for when my daughter was a teen, following proana and self harm accounts on tumblr. I thought I had a squeaky tight parental control but (it may be different now) It was impossible to block tumblr, you could only block individual tumblr accounts, and they were a hydra, I'd block a load and another load popped up. There was also a limit on how many accounts I could block. Thankfully with professional help she's grown up into an amazing woman, I'm so proud of her for overcoming her problems.
Today we have tiktok, and I know it's having a huge influence over my young niece who is he/him polyam, gay, queer and all manner of hashtags, she's only just 16 and has been queer hashtagging since she was 14. She binds too. As I've mentioned elsewhere on here, my brother supports her, his ex the mother does not, and doesn't know. I am planning on talking to her very soon as I think she should know what's going on.
How can this fuckery be reversed, can we ever go back and reclaim childhood innocence? I despair for any future grandchildren I may have as I fear things are just going to become even more sick and twisted. It's all so hideous. It makes me feel sick and angry and sad and gaslit and scared, really scared at where this is all going. I think if I were starting a family now I'd be tempted to move somewhere fairly remote a small community maybe a Scottish island, I'd home educate and I'd have extremely limited and supervised access to tv and internet. I don't see how else it's possible to escape the genderwoo and hypersexualisation of children.
Another collection of extremely repulsive men, that video. And dumb! My estimation of men's intelligence has crashed in recent years, and this video is proof of that. I am not a man because I'm intelligent, and they ARE men because they take so much pride in being cretinous. Get to work, you sick fucks, and do something other than look at your ugly selves in the mirror.
Indeed. Some serious pathology wrapped up in the whole rather toxic phenomenon of transgenderism. Though it's something of a perfect storm -- many factors & flaws in society, and in many segments of it have contributed to its spread.
But ICYMI, Gender Apostates have an illuminating overview on "Transwomen And Narcissistic Rage", this passage in particular:
"Ann Lawrence wrote a fantastic essay on 'Shame and Narcissistic Rage in Transsexualism' , which explores the source of this rage as a manifestation of shame within a developed narcissistic personality disorder."
Not quite sure who the author of the above is but it seems to be this fellow who said there that, "I also masqueraded 'as a woman,' ... [but] in 2013 I stopped taking estrogen for health reasons and very rapidly came back to my senses."
Clearly, estrogen is a very powerful drug that most men are simply not equipped to handle ... 😉
But UK "philosopher" Jane Clare Jones -- her claim to that title is somewhat suspect -- has had a number of quite credible posts on that theme, this one in particular which is noteworthy for its inclusion of a famous painting of "Echo and Narcissus":
And estrogen is a very powerful hormone, as all hormones are, that women are not equipped to handle in excess as has been proven by the many studies linking its use after menopause with increased risk of cancer, etc. Ever wonder why so many women have a problem with migraine headaches? After my hysterectomy, other women told me you knew if you were taking too much estrogen because you would get migraines (and they were right). With the estrogenic substances in our water and food, I suspect many women have too-high levels of estrogen.
Indeed, though hadn't known about "excess levels" but certainly makes sense.
And seem to remember reading about environmental pollution by endocrine disruptors, and some suggestion that that was part of the reason for increased prevalence of "gender dysphoria".
Why is it somewhat suspect? Are you trolling yet again? Why put her profession in quotation marks? Yet state her posts are 'quite credible'? You do manage to push being hugely patronising in your inimicable way yet again. What a piece of work you are.
Hardly. I think Jones has made any number of quite credible arguments, and provided any number of cogent insights -- and I've frequently said so. One of her better of the latter is provided by this quote -- even if it's somewhat obscurely phrased:
"Because I’m going to say that what’s being concealed is the reality of sex, and the conflation of sex and gender enabled by pretending this horrendous clusterfuck is a bun-fight over some mythic essence of womanhood which confers some kind of privilege we’re all so jealously guarding."
Even if, or maybe because, it apparently offers some cogent criticisms of large swaths of women and equally large sections of feminism, notably the view therein that there's some "mythic essence" to "woman".
But that hardly means I think she's perfect, that she has no biases of her own that contribute to the problem of transgenderism and much else -- hence my questioning her philosophical credentials.
Probably a bit too convoluted and obscure to go into in any detail on that issue at the moment, but my argument, and that of more than a few others, is that her biases are part of some larger problems within feminism itself. Great deal of justification to argue that women, in general, have been badly served by much of "feminism". As Kathleen Stock argued, it is in serious need of a "reboot". Far too much of it has been corrupted by postmodernism and outright Lysenkoism.
As for those others, you might take a gander at a review of Louise Perry's "The Case Against the Sexual Revolution" by Helen Dale, and at my comments summarizing some of Dale's zingers on feminism related to that book:
"counterblast to the braindead feminism"; "sincere attempt to anchor feminism in reality"; "what no feminist theorist has done before: take biology seriously"; and "Cordelia Fine, a philosopher now notorious for trying to edit science to fit in with feminism".
I'm sure no feminist philosopher myself, and certainly can't say that I've gotten to the bottom of the field, but people like Dale and Stock sure seem to have some credible criticisms of it. You may wish to take a gander at a couple of my own Substack posts which go into some detail on that score; couple of links in the first one to several of Stock's posts that provide some justification for my arguments:
I work with a transgender man/woman....whatever. He suffers with Bulimia, is very alchol dependent and rocks back and forth when he's slightly nervous. Not much to celebrate there. Xx
omg, the mug sheet of anime avatars! So very brilliant to visually gather them in full force. Grimy little boy men who hate women. All bragging about their neurodivergencies, their ADHD, their Marxist politics, their she/her pronouns. What's to become of them? I'll take the LGB conference over them ANY DAY. What the hell is Owen Jones' point anyway? Ageist? Sexist? Think we've all just about had it with him. Enough is enough.
Plonking your lad out and playing a musical instrument with it to an audience of a couple of million people is absolutely the perfect method to demonstrate that you're suffering from serious distress from having a male anatomy and the consequential perceptions of society.
I wanted to puke 🤢🤮🤬🤬🤬🤡💩, those men are ugly with man hands and feet and they cannot become women, they have been watching porn for far to long. My stomach is churning looking atbthose freaks and wouldbe murderers and abuse of that poor woman and them filming it...they are just thugs SHAME ON THEM SHAME ON THEM SHAME
These seem to me to be the practical consequences of this thing called transgenderism:
1. Granting permission to men (and psychologically disturbed men at that) to invade spaces previously meant for women alone. (And many such spaces were reserved for women alone because they were vulnerable women.)
2. Encouraging paedophile activity – even on an openly public basis.
3. Sanctioning the mutilation of children via puberty blockers, breast binding and surgery.
And most insidiously
4. The labelling of any who object to the above as “haters” and bigots “attacking out vulnerable trans community” (a community often explicitly – and revealingly – labelled as “children”).
And the most important – indeed essential – prop in this programme is the introduction of the new church of “The Science”, before which all seem to fall in abject gullibility. But regarding that much touted "peer review process", it is salutary to recall this quote from Richard Horton, former Editor of the medical journal the Lancet:
“The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”
Thanks for that quote! Most of us would be profoundly shocked if we realized just how little science there is these institutions, particularly medical. The application of technology does not equal science and isn’t healthcare, but is instead very profitable business. ☮️❤️🐾
I'm unaware of the furore the Article refers to, but, I found this section of the Article interesting...
'TikTok said misogyny was prohibited on the platform.
"Our community guidelines specifically call it out as a hateful ideology and we are crystal clear that we do not want that content on our platform," said a spokesperson.'
Can that be right, after some of the shit on that platform in recent times?
Perhaps TikTok's definition of 'misogyny' differs to what we all recognise?
How long have TikTok been saying this? Do other platforms have a similar stance?
To be honest, they read better than many other sites' attempts. But, as you suggest, whilst 'misogyny' is mentioned, it's only mentioned ONCE, and is not expanded upon/defined.
Note...
'Protected categories' includes 'sex'.
'Hateful ideologies are those that demonstrate clear hostility toward people because of their protected attributes.'
Ergo, drag 'artists' [term used loosely. ITV starting a new 'drag show' next month - it's 'trendy', I guess?] ???
Anyway, nuff from me. Thanks for replying Graham, hope you're feeling better after your recent illness xx.
Funnily enough the Educate & Celebrate YouTube channel follows Paloma Faith.
Hmm, the Educate & Celebrate (i.e. Indoctrinate and Devastate) YouTube channel has no videos despite existing since 2015. If you want to see their ideology in action however, footage is available here.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pO1RmHOFS4s
According to the video every conversation is important to 'breaking down the barriers' to achieve LGBT+ inclusion.
That video is creepy AF. Grooming children into a cult. Even really young children. My parents were relaxed about nudity - us seeing them naked if we walked in on them in the bathroom, they gave us age appropriate sex education on a when we asked questions basis, we knew all the basics before we had our first sex ed classes in senior school aged about 13. I don't think I even knew gay sex was a thing until I was about 17, but I wasn't homophobic. Aged 21 I came across a trans person for the first time, a man in his twenties who was transitioning. I felt sorry for him as he seemed very unhappy. I don't know if he was on hormones or having surgery but this was the late 80s. I used to not even really think about trans people at all, there were so few, a rarity, but I don't recall them insisting that they were actual women like they do now. Very young children are now being told humans can actually change sex just by saying they are the sex they want to be, they are being lied to, groomed and manipulated. It feels dystopian and frightening, and I can't see a way out. I know the Tavistock has closed and I know Mermaids are being investigated but I don't think it will be the end of them, I can't see how the madness can be reversed.
I had openly gay friends in my 20s, I'd go clubbing with them to gay clubs because I felt safe, I knew I wouldn't face the same harassment I did in regular night clubs ( I don't think I'd feel safe in a LGBTQ club now thanks to the cult of trans). What I'm trying to say is, I didn't require "educating" about LGBTxyzabc123 as a child to grow into a respectful adult. I naturally gained knowledge as I grew up, and didn't grow up homophobic.
It's horrifying to me that children are being "educated" at younger and younger ages, but this grooming isn't just happening in schools, it's everywhere, children's tv, music, msm, sm, it's inescapable. It must be an impossible task for parents to shield their children from the hypersexualised world we now have, I thought it was bad enough when I was bringing my two children up in the late 90s - 2000s, the internet had a lot to answer for when my daughter was a teen, following proana and self harm accounts on tumblr. I thought I had a squeaky tight parental control but (it may be different now) It was impossible to block tumblr, you could only block individual tumblr accounts, and they were a hydra, I'd block a load and another load popped up. There was also a limit on how many accounts I could block. Thankfully with professional help she's grown up into an amazing woman, I'm so proud of her for overcoming her problems.
Today we have tiktok, and I know it's having a huge influence over my young niece who is he/him polyam, gay, queer and all manner of hashtags, she's only just 16 and has been queer hashtagging since she was 14. She binds too. As I've mentioned elsewhere on here, my brother supports her, his ex the mother does not, and doesn't know. I am planning on talking to her very soon as I think she should know what's going on.
How can this fuckery be reversed, can we ever go back and reclaim childhood innocence? I despair for any future grandchildren I may have as I fear things are just going to become even more sick and twisted. It's all so hideous. It makes me feel sick and angry and sad and gaslit and scared, really scared at where this is all going. I think if I were starting a family now I'd be tempted to move somewhere fairly remote a small community maybe a Scottish island, I'd home educate and I'd have extremely limited and supervised access to tv and internet. I don't see how else it's possible to escape the genderwoo and hypersexualisation of children.
4uh-oh4
[adjective] Not found, especially a web page deleted because of a scandal e.g. Educate and Celebrate Patrons.
As if we needed any more disappointment from the Harry Potter cast.
https://twitter.com/jasonsfolly/status/1583587983357116417
Oh no
though lots of critical comments reacting against his post :-)
Another collection of extremely repulsive men, that video. And dumb! My estimation of men's intelligence has crashed in recent years, and this video is proof of that. I am not a man because I'm intelligent, and they ARE men because they take so much pride in being cretinous. Get to work, you sick fucks, and do something other than look at your ugly selves in the mirror.
Yeah and do something productive with your hands other than yank yourself into erectile dysfunction such that you then think you're women.
Indeed. Some serious pathology wrapped up in the whole rather toxic phenomenon of transgenderism. Though it's something of a perfect storm -- many factors & flaws in society, and in many segments of it have contributed to its spread.
But ICYMI, Gender Apostates have an illuminating overview on "Transwomen And Narcissistic Rage", this passage in particular:
"Ann Lawrence wrote a fantastic essay on 'Shame and Narcissistic Rage in Transsexualism' , which explores the source of this rage as a manifestation of shame within a developed narcissistic personality disorder."
http://genderapostates.com/transwomen-and-narcissistic-rage/
http://www.annelawrence.com/shame_&_narcissistic_rage.pdf
Many others have elaborated on the theme:
https://stoptransingkids.wordpress.com/2018/08/28/yet-another-wave-of-narcissistic-rage-sweeps-through-transworld/
Not quite sure who the author of the above is but it seems to be this fellow who said there that, "I also masqueraded 'as a woman,' ... [but] in 2013 I stopped taking estrogen for health reasons and very rapidly came back to my senses."
Clearly, estrogen is a very powerful drug that most men are simply not equipped to handle ... 😉
https://4thwavenow.com/2018/12/19/the-theatre-of-the-body-a-detransitioned-epidemiologist-examines-suicidality-affirmation-and-transgender-identity/
But UK "philosopher" Jane Clare Jones -- her claim to that title is somewhat suspect -- has had a number of quite credible posts on that theme, this one in particular which is noteworthy for its inclusion of a famous painting of "Echo and Narcissus":
https://janeclarejones.com/2019/06/04/a-dialogue-between-a-trans-woman-and-a-feminist-who-isnt-just-a-figment-of-the-trans-womans-mind/
And estrogen is a very powerful hormone, as all hormones are, that women are not equipped to handle in excess as has been proven by the many studies linking its use after menopause with increased risk of cancer, etc. Ever wonder why so many women have a problem with migraine headaches? After my hysterectomy, other women told me you knew if you were taking too much estrogen because you would get migraines (and they were right). With the estrogenic substances in our water and food, I suspect many women have too-high levels of estrogen.
Indeed, though hadn't known about "excess levels" but certainly makes sense.
And seem to remember reading about environmental pollution by endocrine disruptors, and some suggestion that that was part of the reason for increased prevalence of "gender dysphoria".
Why is it somewhat suspect? Are you trolling yet again? Why put her profession in quotation marks? Yet state her posts are 'quite credible'? You do manage to push being hugely patronising in your inimicable way yet again. What a piece of work you are.
"trolling"? "patronizing"?
Hardly. I think Jones has made any number of quite credible arguments, and provided any number of cogent insights -- and I've frequently said so. One of her better of the latter is provided by this quote -- even if it's somewhat obscurely phrased:
"Because I’m going to say that what’s being concealed is the reality of sex, and the conflation of sex and gender enabled by pretending this horrendous clusterfuck is a bun-fight over some mythic essence of womanhood which confers some kind of privilege we’re all so jealously guarding."
https://janeclarejones.com/2020/01/15/unreasonable-ideas-a-reply-to-alison-phipps/
Even if, or maybe because, it apparently offers some cogent criticisms of large swaths of women and equally large sections of feminism, notably the view therein that there's some "mythic essence" to "woman".
But that hardly means I think she's perfect, that she has no biases of her own that contribute to the problem of transgenderism and much else -- hence my questioning her philosophical credentials.
Probably a bit too convoluted and obscure to go into in any detail on that issue at the moment, but my argument, and that of more than a few others, is that her biases are part of some larger problems within feminism itself. Great deal of justification to argue that women, in general, have been badly served by much of "feminism". As Kathleen Stock argued, it is in serious need of a "reboot". Far too much of it has been corrupted by postmodernism and outright Lysenkoism.
As for those others, you might take a gander at a review of Louise Perry's "The Case Against the Sexual Revolution" by Helen Dale, and at my comments summarizing some of Dale's zingers on feminism related to that book:
"counterblast to the braindead feminism"; "sincere attempt to anchor feminism in reality"; "what no feminist theorist has done before: take biology seriously"; and "Cordelia Fine, a philosopher now notorious for trying to edit science to fit in with feminism".
https://helendale.substack.com/p/around-the-traps-ii/comment/9517083
I'm sure no feminist philosopher myself, and certainly can't say that I've gotten to the bottom of the field, but people like Dale and Stock sure seem to have some credible criticisms of it. You may wish to take a gander at a couple of my own Substack posts which go into some detail on that score; couple of links in the first one to several of Stock's posts that provide some justification for my arguments:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/i/64264079/gender
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/wikipedias-lysenkoism
I work with a transgender man/woman....whatever. He suffers with Bulimia, is very alchol dependent and rocks back and forth when he's slightly nervous. Not much to celebrate there. Xx
You mean Xy. 😉
More like XXX. 🤣
Hahaha. 😄
Jordan Gray, what a strange man doing that to his body. Extremely abnormal behaviour.
They watch too much porn, they groom each other online and out pops the weasel.
Nevermind his body, what about our eyes.
Lol!
omg, the mug sheet of anime avatars! So very brilliant to visually gather them in full force. Grimy little boy men who hate women. All bragging about their neurodivergencies, their ADHD, their Marxist politics, their she/her pronouns. What's to become of them? I'll take the LGB conference over them ANY DAY. What the hell is Owen Jones' point anyway? Ageist? Sexist? Think we've all just about had it with him. Enough is enough.
This is only the tip of the iceberg
Plonking your lad out and playing a musical instrument with it to an audience of a couple of million people is absolutely the perfect method to demonstrate that you're suffering from serious distress from having a male anatomy and the consequential perceptions of society.
That "What is a Woman" video is, possibly, the most disturbing, horrific video I have ever seen. We have to win. We have to.
Bloody hell. That dude with the thin greasy hair looked like he'd had a bad E. 🤪🤣
Jesus wept. That video is utterly horrifying.
Trans is not the new gay. Trans is the new incel.
I wanted to puke 🤢🤮🤬🤬🤬🤡💩, those men are ugly with man hands and feet and they cannot become women, they have been watching porn for far to long. My stomach is churning looking atbthose freaks and wouldbe murderers and abuse of that poor woman and them filming it...they are just thugs SHAME ON THEM SHAME ON THEM SHAME
These seem to me to be the practical consequences of this thing called transgenderism:
1. Granting permission to men (and psychologically disturbed men at that) to invade spaces previously meant for women alone. (And many such spaces were reserved for women alone because they were vulnerable women.)
2. Encouraging paedophile activity – even on an openly public basis.
3. Sanctioning the mutilation of children via puberty blockers, breast binding and surgery.
And most insidiously
4. The labelling of any who object to the above as “haters” and bigots “attacking out vulnerable trans community” (a community often explicitly – and revealingly – labelled as “children”).
And the most important – indeed essential – prop in this programme is the introduction of the new church of “The Science”, before which all seem to fall in abject gullibility. But regarding that much touted "peer review process", it is salutary to recall this quote from Richard Horton, former Editor of the medical journal the Lancet:
“The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”
Thanks for that quote! Most of us would be profoundly shocked if we realized just how little science there is these institutions, particularly medical. The application of technology does not equal science and isn’t healthcare, but is instead very profitable business. ☮️❤️🐾
Read something just now, on the BBC News site of all places...
[ Link to the Article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63243423 ]
I'm unaware of the furore the Article refers to, but, I found this section of the Article interesting...
'TikTok said misogyny was prohibited on the platform.
"Our community guidelines specifically call it out as a hateful ideology and we are crystal clear that we do not want that content on our platform," said a spokesperson.'
Can that be right, after some of the shit on that platform in recent times?
Perhaps TikTok's definition of 'misogyny' differs to what we all recognise?
How long have TikTok been saying this? Do other platforms have a similar stance?
when they say 'misogyny', they're including as its victims men
I hear you.
I just had a quick scan of TikTok's 'Community Guidelines', particularly 'Hateful Behaviour' and 'Hateful Ideology' [ here: https://www.tiktok.com/community-guidelines?lang=en#38 ].
To be honest, they read better than many other sites' attempts. But, as you suggest, whilst 'misogyny' is mentioned, it's only mentioned ONCE, and is not expanded upon/defined.
Note...
'Protected categories' includes 'sex'.
'Hateful ideologies are those that demonstrate clear hostility toward people because of their protected attributes.'
Ergo, drag 'artists' [term used loosely. ITV starting a new 'drag show' next month - it's 'trendy', I guess?] ???
Anyway, nuff from me. Thanks for replying Graham, hope you're feeling better after your recent illness xx.