That was/is me! Two older brothers whom I adored and totally copied every move from, including climbing trees higher, riding bikes faster, playing hockey better and spitting farther than any boy in my age group 🤣
I also joined my brothers in ripping off the heads and limbs of our younger sister's Barbies. 🫣🤪
Now married to a wonderful man going into our 4th decade together with two lovely adult children. Well, one lovely son and a daughter who used to be lovely until she got infected with the woke mind virus, and hasn't spoken a word to us in over 4 years.
I get it. My #2 son became my #2 "daughter." We haven't spoken since 2017. My other four sons remained sons (although one died at just short of six months) . . .
Yes, apparently they had the sense to allow her to dress and act however she wanted without telling her that made her something she wasn’t. Which used to be normal when I was a kid. There have always been girls who didn’t enjoy being girly girls, no big deal.
I have to ask how allowing a kid to dress how they want, WITHOUT telling them it means they’re the opposite sex, psychologically damages them? I had some tomboyish tendencies back in the 70s and 80s and I personally think it’s a lot healthier to allow kids to be interested in whatever they’re interested in than it is to tell them that they must conform to rigid gender roles and stereotypes and if they don’t there’s something wrong with them.
How do you know? What is going on then? I never heard Jolie or Pitt describe their daughter as “trans” or a boy, just that she preferred to wear boys’ clothing. She now presents as a girl and wears dresses in public. It appears to me they treated it sanely and she’s fine now, unlike most of the other kids on this list. But it’s quite possible you know something I don’t about the situation, I don’t follow it closely.
Actually I had read that Jolie WAS in fact affirming her as a boy and Pitt was unhappy about it and fought it. I think the only reason no further interventions occurred was because Pitt wouldn’t allow it and wasn’t affirming her as a boy. I’d bet her reverting is also thanks to him keeping a check on it. That’s simply what I had read through that period of time. It’s been awhile since I paid it any attention.
“In the last decade, media representation of LGBTQ+ identities has dramatically increased.
A study from GLAAD’s 2022 Studio Responsibility Index found that 12% of major studio films now feature LGBTQ+ characters, a significant increase from 1% a decade ago.
[That is a 1,100% increase — a data point that we should be mindful of.]”
During the pandemic, a remote contractor told me she had decided to be trans (and become a boy). Letting her explain some, it really just boiled down to two things: she wanted an algorithm boost on Instagram, and wanted to piss off her traditional (East Asian) parents who then wanted to kick her out of the house. I told her there are easier ways to fly the coop; no clue what her situation is at this point but the whole thing seemed sad as hell.
Kind of shocking how she just admitted the molochian nature of this sacrifice: offering up one's childhood body (she was in her 20s however) and eventual reproductive capacity for a superficial rise. Nihilistic parents sacrifice their children to Moloch in this sense, and apparently some kids sacrifice themselves for all the wrong reasons.
Ironically, self-destroying while simultaneously shilling against capitalism, while going into deep debt for capitalistic cross-sex hormones and gratuitous surgeries.
This is the result of combining two - seemingly reasonable - Liberal Maxim's: first and famously, that gender is social construct; second, that gender expression should be 'child-led'.
But IF gender is a social construct THEN it must be learned the same way language is - that is, it must be taught.
Or, if gender is inborn then gender dysmorphia is a psychologically disordered state.
The Achilles heel in their paradigm is the idea of the gender spectrum. It is the only way they can theoretically outpace their fallacy. I think it is where the battle is headed.
"What is the genetic, biological, or physiological basis that explains HOW (supposedly) a male person is born into a female body, or a female person into a male body?"....
There is no such explanation. It's why you never hear it discussed. The discussions always focus on internal, subjective feelings, that we are supposedly morally obliged to accept without any hints of scepticism or questioning.
There are various (BS in my opinion) studies that supposedly show that brains of transgender people more closely resemble those of their chosen gender rather than their physical sex. However, my understanding is that these studies were done on brains AFTER hormones, which probably explains the very minor differences that were seen.
I don't know the studies you're referring to specifically, but I've seen exactly that with psych drugs and "brain scan" studies. The psych drugs themselves are proven to cause changes in brain structures over the long term, which is then used to wrongly claim that so-called "mental illnesses" are detectable by brain scan. So think about it. If either gender, or "mental illness" COULD be "detected" with brain scans, we'd know for sure, and it would be a routine diagnostic procedure! But nobody is even seriously suggesting that, much less claiming it! Pseudoscience indeed!.
Hi Michael, thanks for your comment; it presents a clear framework for examining the question at hand.
I find your use of language as a comparable example interesting, as human language development depends quite a bit on language-specific internal mechanisms in addition to input, and plausibly the same case could be made for gender (insofar as there seems to be evidence that the brains of transgender people sometimes match their gender more than their biological sex in terms of neurological dimorphisms, and gender role specifics vary by culture much as languages do).
In terms of your conditionals, I am inclined to believe that gender identity has both biological (specifically neurological) and cultural/learned components (I do not have a clear sense of what universals there are in human male and females behaviors across cultures, but I suspect some or many of the specifics of gender expression are culturally specific). The question, in terms of neurological differences, is thus how to address them; I do not think being transgender is necessarily a bad solution to dysphoria, though I do think that any solution that requires significant medical intervention (as with gender dysphoria) should not be considered an unequivocal, universal best option.
As for the gender spectrum, I think it is true that the extent to which people act socially in traditionally masculine/feminine ways is more of a spectrum than a binary, and sexual dimorphisms such as hormone levels are (I would guess, with minimal evidence) something of a bimodal spectrum.
In summary, I like your framework for looking at this but think it might leave out some relevant details, which I do not know the exact nature of.
I am happy to concede that there is a phenomenon based in biology that has always existed in which people really do feel like the opposite gender. I was previously willing to live and let live and politely pretend they are what they want to be. It was my nature to want to be polite. But the whole trans movement has morphed into a movement for social control. It’s no longer just about the transgender person, it’s about the observer and non-transgender person who must now *believe* certain things and *say* certain things. Even when there is no transgender person present, you are sometimes asked to “give your pronouns.” It’s about changing *you*, the non-transgender person. YOU must believe and affirm. YOU must give your pronouns. Your children must believe and affirm. We must have flags and T-shirts and parades. We must celebrate. It’s astounding that this has gotten as far as it has. Regardless of any biological/neurological basis, it’s absolute madness that violent males are sent into female prisons; men who a year ago were competing against males are now competing against females; and that there are people who would send you death threats merely for saying these things.
Hi Akiko, thanks for your comment. Please bear with me for this response—it is a little bit all over the place, and I do not have a clear enough concept of what I want to say to be able to edit it very well.
"But the whole trans movement has morphed into a movement for social control."
Unfortunately, I agree — and I think this is as true of political support for it as it is for political opposition to it. For example, while it is true that "men who a year ago were competing against males are now competing against females", the numbers are small enough as to be relatively minimal (at least according to what I know of NCAA records of such). The fact that this is such a major political issue has more to do with the right wing trying to make it one than it does with a massive entry of female sports by biologically male transgender athletes. (I will concede that the left wing has done an excellent job taking the bait and further making this more of a national political issue than it ought to be.)
I am also in agreement with you that there now exists a problematic expectation that you believe and say certain things about gender that are not necessarily unequivocal scientific fact. I also believe that in the past, there were expectations around gender that were not based in unequivocal scientific fact (not letting women vote, male-biased medicine, gender roles in general*). In my personal experience, the extent to which you must say things is not as extreme as it has apparently been in yours—while at a fairly liberal university, I have never *had to* have flags, t-shirts, or parades, whether as a viewer or participant. As for the pronoun question, I think it is reasonable for people to want to be identified in particular ways, though I do think the argument over it is insane and excessive. Sharing one's pronouns is a minor exercise in helping people refer to you as you want, whether or not it is necessary, and using a person's chosen pronouns is usually a reasonable and polite thing to do and an activity in which people can engage in good faith. Failure to use a person's chosen pronouns, particularly unintentionally, is not a significant problem, nor is it treated as such in the left-wing social circles that I run in.
Where I have instead seen the problem personally is less that you will be sent death threats for saying things against the dominant left-wing narrative, but that there is nevertheless no room for critical discussion of the topic. The problem seems to be an acute lack of good faith, insofar as any criticism of anything is often interpreted as an admission of either ignorance or hatred towards trans people (or at the very least, there is a strong social perception of such that discourages real conversation.)
*Not that there are no differences between men and women, but many of the differences exhibited by American society are cultural rather than biological and treated as much more immutable than I suspect them to be.
The question, then, is how to get to a reasonable equilibrium that protects everyone's freedom of thought and action, is relatively true to reality, and allows for social cohesion rather than tension. At the very least, we need to be able to have a discussion of the issue that allows people to speak honestly and listen to what other people are saying.
First of all, thank you for your emphasis on civil discussion.
In my profession, entire companies require their employees to put their pronouns in their e-mail signatures. For me, this feels very similar to how during the vaccine mandates, employees were not required but *expected* to make a show of how they were vaccinated. One person who got vaccinated but never announced it told me that someone told her “people are talking about you,” because she didn’t announce that she was vaccinated. For me, the pronouns are the same thing – they’re a way of announcing that you are a part of the Good People.
As for sports, if there was 1 male out of 300 athletes competing in a female track meet, and he reached the podium in 2 different events, does it really matter how many total males there were? What is the number where you feel it would become unfair to the female athletes competing and therefore an issue? It seems to me that it’s not the total number that matters, it’s the impact on the female athletes. They now have to wonder, Will there be a male competing against me, and if so what will happen if I protest? I also think we should do everything possible to maintain a meritocracy in every domain. A mediocre male athlete in women’s sports does the opposite. Emmanuel Todd, the French historian who predicted the fall of the Soviet Union, said this: "The renunciation of the meritocratic principle closes the democratic phase of American history." We need to claw our way back to applying the meritocratic principle everywhere we can.
"For me, the pronouns are the same thing – they’re a way of announcing that you are a part of the Good People."
I would largely agree that they tend to be used as such. I do not personally have a problem with pronouns being part of introductions, but the example of the email signature 'mandate' is certainly more problematic than helpful. In general, I think that requiring certain patterns of speech and thought in order to ensure employment and/or social and/or academic inclusion is the main problem with 'wokeness'; so the problem is less the actions and words in themselves, which in many cases have the potential for some benefit, but rather the manner in which they replace free expression and critical thinking.
As for sports, it is more the fact that the vast majority of female sports competitions do not involve trans women who are able to dominate because they used to be men. At the NCAA level, a quick search suggested that there were maybe 50-100 trans women, tops, out of ~500k athletes—which is, at most, 1 for every 5k athletes. (Minimally, there are at least 10 or so, for 1 in every 50k).
As for the numbers at which it becomes a problem, I think that it would never be a big enough problem that national politicians should be getting significantly involved in defense or attack of it. Rather, it should be resolved at a local level by the communities and sports organizations in question. With regard to college sports, I do not trust the NCAA to make decisions that are good for athletes, but I also do not think politicians need to intervene.
As for meritocracy, yes; any deviation from meritocracy ought to require significant evidence-based reasoning.
NCAA Division I has more than 5,000 female swimmers. If one of them is male and he is on the podium three times in the NCAA championships, I think that’s a problem for all 5,000+ female swimmers. (Top 8 reach the podium.) You and I will need to agree to disagree on whether it’s less of a problem because it’s only 1/5,000. Also, the federal government has been intervening in school sports for decades via Title IX. If you oppose that, that’s fine, but it’s nothing new.
I no longer believe there’s a phenomenon based in biology that makes people feel like the opposite sex. (How would anyone really know what the opposite sex feels like anyhow?) There are various reasons why people choose to transition. Some of them know their reasons would be viewed as creepy or distasteful, so they push really hard to get everyone to believe that there’s a biological basis. After having had a front row seat to this, I am quite sure there’s no biological basis, just maladaptive coping mechanisms.
I am not an expert on the evidence, but there are definitely some neurological differences that correlate strongly but imperfectly to biological sex.
The sexually dimorphic nucleus, which is significantly larger in men, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexually_dimorphic_nucleus) is the most obvious example, but there is at least some evidence of other differences in different structures, functional connections, presence and specific effects of different neurological conditions, etc. (You should be able to find decent scholarly articles on the matter just by searching, if you really want to, though I have yet to find a really good one that isn't paywalled.)
I have yet to seriously investigate how these dimorphisms are expressed in transgender individuals, but I have vaguely seen at least some evidence that it matches gender identity as opposed to biological sex in some individuals in some studies.
True. I am arguing that, if gender is understood as the human social and behavioral counterpart to biological sex as an anatomical reality, and there are neurological differences that correspond to sex, then those neurological differences probably do cause (in part or in whole) differences in gender identity and expression.
In cases of correlation, either one variable causes the other, or the other causes the one, or a separate variable causes both (potentially through long causal change), or they correlate purely out of random coincidence.
Random coincidence seems increasingly unlikely, and it is equally implausible that gender identity causes extreme neurological changes directly.
The most realistic confounding variables that I can currently think of are hormone levels or epigenetic changes in the pre- or early-post-natal environment, which would still have to impact the brain or perception to cause behavioral and identitarian differences. I do appreciate you forcing me to realize that sexual dimorphisms could realistically shape gender identity in ways other than easily-observed brain macro-infrastructure, though.
My apologies for the length of this reply. The first part is a more or less direct response to your comment; the second part is more my personal musings on the general topic.
With regard to "The End of Gender": I have not read it; thank you for the recommendation, I shall try to read it if I get the chance.
Based on the above book review, I think I may have some mild points of relative disagreement with the book, though I shall present them in a more hypothetical sense since I am not expert enough on the topic to argue with confidence:
In particularly, I suspect that gender and sex are less likely to be binaries and more likely to be bimodal distributions, which does imply that transgender identities can have a logical, scientific basis.
With regard to sex, the evidence that a bimodal model may work better than a binary has to do with the fact that a) not everyone is XX or XY, and b) hormone levels and other developmental factors do result in some people having genitalia that do not match their chromosomes, which together mean that there is a small but not-insignificant intersex population.
With regard to gender, I think there is likely to at least as varied of a distribution. If we understand gender as being based in neurological differences that cause typical male and female personalities and behaviors—which is not necessarily the most typical definition, but it makes some sense to use here—then it is not unreasonable to posit that individuals would probably show different degrees of divergence from the human mean towards the brain type of one sex or the other, since brain systems and social behaviors are typically highly complex and differences are usually far from discrete.
In general, I am trying to figure out how our society can just recognize that:
1) All humans have a lot in common and are shaped by their genetics and culture in significant and overlapping ways; almost every aspect of our personality comes from both our genes and our lived experience. (Some personality characteristics, and a greater proportion of physical characteristics, are more or less genetic.)
2) Men and women differ in biologically significant ways, including neurologically, but these differences are tendencies rather than universals. (More data is needed in general, and more is needed to be investigated by me, for me to be able to get more specific and confident.)
3) Gender roles are based on universal biological differences but are also culture-specific. Moreover, gender roles and expectations are lumping categories that do not fully reflect anyone's social identity. (Very few, if any, people, are purely stereotypically masculine or feminine.) One can be a masculine woman or a feminine man and nevertheless be a woman and man respectively.
4) There is nothing objectively right or wrong about people being transgender in a factual sense, if we understand "transgender" to mean portraying oneself and acting in accordance with the gender that does not match one's biological sense. It is predominantly a normative issue. Of course, there are facts that are relevant to the discussion, such as the extent to which neurological gender differences line up with biological sex, which is not to my knowledge a fully settled question (I skimmed a few scientific reviews and retain that conclusion: e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-016-0768-5). But ultimately it is a matter of social and linguistic customs, with relevance for some individuals' mental and physical health.
5) Given (4), we should be able to figure this out in a way that protect's people's freedoms, encourages social cohesion, and enhances collective prosperity. My liberal tendencies lead me to believe that the best solution here would be to allow people to identify as the gender they prefer, while recognizing that it is okay for people to dislike, disapprove of, or not understand your social choices as long as they do not actively harm you or constrain your rights. I also believe that we should be able to discuss the topic in good faith as a genuine debate about which social norms are best for our society.
The true purpose of gender in human biology, is for a single male sperm cell, and a single, unfertilized female egg cell, to unite, and form a single fertilized female egg cell. I see NO "binary" there. Gender is unitary. Gender is female, with a male reproductive aspect. So-called "LGBTQ" is a divisive, destructive psy op.
Thank you for clarifying, Bill. I must admit I do not exactly agree with you on this topic.
First of all, I see no meaningful difference between your definition of unitary female + a male repoductive aspect and my definition of binary (female or male). I would also point out that egg cells are not necessarily female in the typical sense of the term, since about half of fertilized human eggs have XY chromosomes and thus would usually be considered genetically male.
Secondly, homosexuality exists both in animals other than humans and in humans, and gender queerness has a long history in a variety of human cultures, so your claim that 'LGBQ is a psy op', at the very least, is simply false. When it comes to the current versions of transsexuality and transgenderness, I see little evidence that it is a top-down psychological operation, nor do I think it is inherently destructive.
As a final note, I would prefer for you to phrase your comments to make it clearer that you are commenting in good faith and trying to expand both your own and other people's understanding of the topic. To that end, greater elaboration and intellectual humility might be useful.
"Binary", as applied to human gender, didn't enter common usage until AFTER "binary", as in "computer binary code" did. But "0's" & "1's" in binary code do not transform into each other. Human gender is both sides of the same coin. In gender ideology, gender is seen as a dime & a nickel. Not the same.
2. Yes, FERTILIZED female egg cells. Whose body are they in? The female! For the next 9 months. Same for fertilized female eggs containing XX chromosomes.
3.Animal sexuality is not directly relevant to human sexuality discussions.
4."Gender queerness" has no scientific definition. It's pure ideology, basically opinion. Neither provable, not falsifiable. NOBODY can "prove" that ANYBODY is, or isn't "queer".
5. WPATH. Globalist. Davos-WEF-Klaus Schwab, technocracy & transhumanism. So-called "trans" people are NOT human. they are TRANS-human. And technocracized.
As for my "humility", I am the most humble man in town, and supremely self-confident. I love God more than He loves me. I also have a sense of humor.
Thanks for writing this. I’ve been waiting for a compilation of all the Hollywood trans kids. Seems like there is a new one everyday. You have to wonder what’s going on when both Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez produce two trans kids during their second term.
A good thesis as to why so many Hollywood celebrities have trans kids.
I have a corollary question - if this was YOUR adolescent/young adult child outside of the 'celebrity cult' - and s/he came to you and told you that she believed that she was actually the opposite sex, would you still embrace her as you did before, love her as you did before?
I think of my children and while I wouldn't want that to be the case for them - for a variety of reasons - as a mother I would feel very protective of them and I would want them to know that I will always love them no matter what the circumstances would be. I would stand by & up for them to show to THEM that there was someone on their side & so that they wouldn't feel abandoned or alone. I don't have the answer. Just wondered what others thought.
I am actually in this position. My now 20 year old daughter started using a male name and pronouns at school when she was 14. It took me a while to find out what was going on. She’s now fully entrenched in this, but fortunately has not pursued any medicalization. It has been the worst experience of my life, watching my child be manipulated by a cult-like community trying to convince her that I hate her, watching her hate and reject herself, and knowing that you cannot control what another person feels or thinks. I will never stop loving my child or wanting what’s best for her, and I would never issue any ultimatums about kicking her out or cutting her off from my love and support. I do have my own lines I can’t cross. I will not lie and call her by another name or call her a man when she is objectively not. I will never allow my money (or insurance that I pay for) to be used toward what I view as self-harm.
Just as I would still love my daughter if she was an addict, or in a terrible relationship she refused to leave, or had an eating disorder, or was homeless and refused help, or got plastic surgery to look like a celebrity, or made her living on Only Fans, I will always still love her. But I can’t pretend to approve of actions I see as harmful, and I can’t lie. I actually don’t think that would be kind and supportive. The relationship was pretty rough for a few years but it’s much better now. She knows how much she’s loved and that we want the best for her. We simply disagree about what the best is. I still have hope that she will come to her senses eventually.
Dee, thank you for that. When our kids are born I imagine most of us think only about the successes they might have. If we actually knew what was ahead of us as parents, I wonder if anyone would take the job.
I’d never, ever be able to stop loving any of my children. I’d always never doubt walking through fire to save them. But the fire Id first choose to walk through with them, if they had developed true gender dysphoria, would be very deep, loving & extensive therapy, to examine the where & how they lost their self acceptance. The grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence. Losing self acceptance & self love is the worst & starts so much self destruction…
I'm quite certain these folks never "raised" their children. If anything, they had 2-3 illegal nannies raise their kids for them. Being a celebrity demands so much --- parties with Diddy, gala events to dress up for, and all those extra-marital affairs --- keep them away from parental roles only peons have time for.
Any wonder their kids are starved for attention from their ... "parents" ??
This is what happens when we have too much, too much time, too much money, too much of everything and forgot how to earn it, work for it; forgetting where we came from. Boredom amongst celebrities and billionaires has destroyed the American value system, societal norms and opened the door for the evil destructive forces we are now combating. We are not one big rat lab for Fauci and Bill Gates. Transitioning is not the answer for poor parenting and redirecting children to seek constructive healthy ways to express creativity, seek validation or compete with fame of parents to whom they were born. Failed on all accounts, all measures and all standards
Jolie’s daughter has fully reverted to being feminine after going through puberty.
She never had medical interventions. She just dressed like a boy as a child (probably emulating her older brothers)
So she was what used to be called a "tomboy"? A girl who wasn't into "girly" stuff but never denied she was a girl?
That was/is me! Two older brothers whom I adored and totally copied every move from, including climbing trees higher, riding bikes faster, playing hockey better and spitting farther than any boy in my age group 🤣
I also joined my brothers in ripping off the heads and limbs of our younger sister's Barbies. 🫣🤪
Now married to a wonderful man going into our 4th decade together with two lovely adult children. Well, one lovely son and a daughter who used to be lovely until she got infected with the woke mind virus, and hasn't spoken a word to us in over 4 years.
So sorry to know your daughter got infected by the woke mind virus and has cut you off. The virus is definitely going around. Sadly.
Thank you 🙏🏼❤️
I get it. My #2 son became my #2 "daughter." We haven't spoken since 2017. My other four sons remained sons (although one died at just short of six months) . . .
I was happy to see this. I’m glad they did not impose any intervention on her.
Yes, apparently they had the sense to allow her to dress and act however she wanted without telling her that made her something she wasn’t. Which used to be normal when I was a kid. There have always been girls who didn’t enjoy being girly girls, no big deal.
And now the psychological damage has already been done. Disgusting demons.
I have to ask how allowing a kid to dress how they want, WITHOUT telling them it means they’re the opposite sex, psychologically damages them? I had some tomboyish tendencies back in the 70s and 80s and I personally think it’s a lot healthier to allow kids to be interested in whatever they’re interested in than it is to tell them that they must conform to rigid gender roles and stereotypes and if they don’t there’s something wrong with them.
Not what's going on here.
How do you know? What is going on then? I never heard Jolie or Pitt describe their daughter as “trans” or a boy, just that she preferred to wear boys’ clothing. She now presents as a girl and wears dresses in public. It appears to me they treated it sanely and she’s fine now, unlike most of the other kids on this list. But it’s quite possible you know something I don’t about the situation, I don’t follow it closely.
Actually I had read that Jolie WAS in fact affirming her as a boy and Pitt was unhappy about it and fought it. I think the only reason no further interventions occurred was because Pitt wouldn’t allow it and wasn’t affirming her as a boy. I’d bet her reverting is also thanks to him keeping a check on it. That’s simply what I had read through that period of time. It’s been awhile since I paid it any attention.
If true, thank god the saner parent prevailed
She may have just been acting. Child actor getting paid big bucks to play a role?
“In the last decade, media representation of LGBTQ+ identities has dramatically increased.
A study from GLAAD’s 2022 Studio Responsibility Index found that 12% of major studio films now feature LGBTQ+ characters, a significant increase from 1% a decade ago.
[That is a 1,100% increase — a data point that we should be mindful of.]”
It’s called “programming” for a reason: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/how-the-democrats-are-destroying
During the pandemic, a remote contractor told me she had decided to be trans (and become a boy). Letting her explain some, it really just boiled down to two things: she wanted an algorithm boost on Instagram, and wanted to piss off her traditional (East Asian) parents who then wanted to kick her out of the house. I told her there are easier ways to fly the coop; no clue what her situation is at this point but the whole thing seemed sad as hell.
Kind of shocking how she just admitted the molochian nature of this sacrifice: offering up one's childhood body (she was in her 20s however) and eventual reproductive capacity for a superficial rise. Nihilistic parents sacrifice their children to Moloch in this sense, and apparently some kids sacrifice themselves for all the wrong reasons.
molech asherah and baal ✂️ 🔥👶🏼🔪👹
....no thing knew under the ☀️ Sun 🩸 citizen.
A culture of death that aborts it's own children will think know thing ⚧️ about mutilating them: heart mind soul and strength as they grow. 💀
.......CARTHAGE MUST FALL! ⚓ 🌊 🪦
BLM = Ba'al, Lucifer, Moloch....
Instagram the new Carthage? Where's the reincarnation of Scipio Africanus when we need him!
Dunno Amigo but ⚖️ at this stage, it's more likely that we get Hannibal 📯🐘🛡️🪓🐎🌍 (grace of baal💀) than Scipio....
Ironically, self-destroying while simultaneously shilling against capitalism, while going into deep debt for capitalistic cross-sex hormones and gratuitous surgeries.
A soul-less shell is sad.
Imagine, if you will, having more concern about what you're wearing for the next cool kids gathering than mutilating your child!
And then imagine, having a soul so black, that you treat the decision as if it's less important than finding this year's new black.
To sacrifice your children at the alter of the next_thing...and be casual about it.
well said
None of this is coincidence.
It's narcissism wrapped in psychopathy & disguised as 'progress'.
- Jamie Lee Curtis, Trans
- Dwyane Wade, Trans
- Naomi Watts, Trans
- Megan Fox, non binary and Trans
- Cher, Trans
- Cynthia Nixon, Trans
- Marlon Wayans, Trans
- Charlize Theron, Trans
- Heather Dubrow, Trans
- Sigourney Weaver, non binary
- Annette Bening, Trans
- Sting, non binary
- Ally Sheedy, Trans
- Angelina Jolie, non binary
- Rosie O’Donnell, non binary
- Khary Payton, Trans
- Jennifer Lopez, Trans
- Busy Philipps, Trans
- Robert De Niro's, Trans
- Cindy Barshop, Trans
- Sigourney Weaver,
- Ben Affleck's daughter, Trans
- Heather Dubrow, one child bi, one child lesbian, one child trans
Welcome to the cult.
Exactly. Like with Megan Fox who just so happens to have 3 children that are all transies.
Call me crazy, but what's more likely, that we're the crazy ones for thinking she's crazy or that she's just simply batshit crazy?
C'mon now with the "everyone is trans" nonsense. They're just nutjobs.
With Satanism thrown in
If these people had the courage of their convictions, they would burn their own Teslas instead of selling them.
Hey, im hoping to pick one up for less than 10k, but i need more fools to keep buying the things
.....the horror of madness and group-think.
Resist the Collective!
Lord, have mercy.....😔❤️🩹
This is the result of combining two - seemingly reasonable - Liberal Maxim's: first and famously, that gender is social construct; second, that gender expression should be 'child-led'.
But IF gender is a social construct THEN it must be learned the same way language is - that is, it must be taught.
Or, if gender is inborn then gender dysmorphia is a psychologically disordered state.
The Achilles heel in their paradigm is the idea of the gender spectrum. It is the only way they can theoretically outpace their fallacy. I think it is where the battle is headed.
or just batshit fucking crazy.
the nine most dangerous words you can tell a confused child.
"in order to be yourself, you must change yourself".
or the 10 most dangerous words:
"genitalia don't determine gender but lopping them off changes it"
sorry folks, you can't "reinvent" puberty.
"What is the genetic, biological, or physiological basis that explains HOW (supposedly) a male person is born into a female body, or a female person into a male body?"....
There is no such explanation. It's why you never hear it discussed. The discussions always focus on internal, subjective feelings, that we are supposedly morally obliged to accept without any hints of scepticism or questioning.
That's my point exactly. We need to call them out, and demand an objective, scientific explanation. Then let them stutter and stumble....
We need to be discussing the quiet part out loud. That's our only hope, IMHO.
There are various (BS in my opinion) studies that supposedly show that brains of transgender people more closely resemble those of their chosen gender rather than their physical sex. However, my understanding is that these studies were done on brains AFTER hormones, which probably explains the very minor differences that were seen.
I don't know the studies you're referring to specifically, but I've seen exactly that with psych drugs and "brain scan" studies. The psych drugs themselves are proven to cause changes in brain structures over the long term, which is then used to wrongly claim that so-called "mental illnesses" are detectable by brain scan. So think about it. If either gender, or "mental illness" COULD be "detected" with brain scans, we'd know for sure, and it would be a routine diagnostic procedure! But nobody is even seriously suggesting that, much less claiming it! Pseudoscience indeed!.
Hi Michael, thanks for your comment; it presents a clear framework for examining the question at hand.
I find your use of language as a comparable example interesting, as human language development depends quite a bit on language-specific internal mechanisms in addition to input, and plausibly the same case could be made for gender (insofar as there seems to be evidence that the brains of transgender people sometimes match their gender more than their biological sex in terms of neurological dimorphisms, and gender role specifics vary by culture much as languages do).
In terms of your conditionals, I am inclined to believe that gender identity has both biological (specifically neurological) and cultural/learned components (I do not have a clear sense of what universals there are in human male and females behaviors across cultures, but I suspect some or many of the specifics of gender expression are culturally specific). The question, in terms of neurological differences, is thus how to address them; I do not think being transgender is necessarily a bad solution to dysphoria, though I do think that any solution that requires significant medical intervention (as with gender dysphoria) should not be considered an unequivocal, universal best option.
As for the gender spectrum, I think it is true that the extent to which people act socially in traditionally masculine/feminine ways is more of a spectrum than a binary, and sexual dimorphisms such as hormone levels are (I would guess, with minimal evidence) something of a bimodal spectrum.
In summary, I like your framework for looking at this but think it might leave out some relevant details, which I do not know the exact nature of.
I am happy to concede that there is a phenomenon based in biology that has always existed in which people really do feel like the opposite gender. I was previously willing to live and let live and politely pretend they are what they want to be. It was my nature to want to be polite. But the whole trans movement has morphed into a movement for social control. It’s no longer just about the transgender person, it’s about the observer and non-transgender person who must now *believe* certain things and *say* certain things. Even when there is no transgender person present, you are sometimes asked to “give your pronouns.” It’s about changing *you*, the non-transgender person. YOU must believe and affirm. YOU must give your pronouns. Your children must believe and affirm. We must have flags and T-shirts and parades. We must celebrate. It’s astounding that this has gotten as far as it has. Regardless of any biological/neurological basis, it’s absolute madness that violent males are sent into female prisons; men who a year ago were competing against males are now competing against females; and that there are people who would send you death threats merely for saying these things.
Hi Akiko, thanks for your comment. Please bear with me for this response—it is a little bit all over the place, and I do not have a clear enough concept of what I want to say to be able to edit it very well.
"But the whole trans movement has morphed into a movement for social control."
Unfortunately, I agree — and I think this is as true of political support for it as it is for political opposition to it. For example, while it is true that "men who a year ago were competing against males are now competing against females", the numbers are small enough as to be relatively minimal (at least according to what I know of NCAA records of such). The fact that this is such a major political issue has more to do with the right wing trying to make it one than it does with a massive entry of female sports by biologically male transgender athletes. (I will concede that the left wing has done an excellent job taking the bait and further making this more of a national political issue than it ought to be.)
I am also in agreement with you that there now exists a problematic expectation that you believe and say certain things about gender that are not necessarily unequivocal scientific fact. I also believe that in the past, there were expectations around gender that were not based in unequivocal scientific fact (not letting women vote, male-biased medicine, gender roles in general*). In my personal experience, the extent to which you must say things is not as extreme as it has apparently been in yours—while at a fairly liberal university, I have never *had to* have flags, t-shirts, or parades, whether as a viewer or participant. As for the pronoun question, I think it is reasonable for people to want to be identified in particular ways, though I do think the argument over it is insane and excessive. Sharing one's pronouns is a minor exercise in helping people refer to you as you want, whether or not it is necessary, and using a person's chosen pronouns is usually a reasonable and polite thing to do and an activity in which people can engage in good faith. Failure to use a person's chosen pronouns, particularly unintentionally, is not a significant problem, nor is it treated as such in the left-wing social circles that I run in.
Where I have instead seen the problem personally is less that you will be sent death threats for saying things against the dominant left-wing narrative, but that there is nevertheless no room for critical discussion of the topic. The problem seems to be an acute lack of good faith, insofar as any criticism of anything is often interpreted as an admission of either ignorance or hatred towards trans people (or at the very least, there is a strong social perception of such that discourages real conversation.)
*Not that there are no differences between men and women, but many of the differences exhibited by American society are cultural rather than biological and treated as much more immutable than I suspect them to be.
The question, then, is how to get to a reasonable equilibrium that protects everyone's freedom of thought and action, is relatively true to reality, and allows for social cohesion rather than tension. At the very least, we need to be able to have a discussion of the issue that allows people to speak honestly and listen to what other people are saying.
First of all, thank you for your emphasis on civil discussion.
In my profession, entire companies require their employees to put their pronouns in their e-mail signatures. For me, this feels very similar to how during the vaccine mandates, employees were not required but *expected* to make a show of how they were vaccinated. One person who got vaccinated but never announced it told me that someone told her “people are talking about you,” because she didn’t announce that she was vaccinated. For me, the pronouns are the same thing – they’re a way of announcing that you are a part of the Good People.
As for sports, if there was 1 male out of 300 athletes competing in a female track meet, and he reached the podium in 2 different events, does it really matter how many total males there were? What is the number where you feel it would become unfair to the female athletes competing and therefore an issue? It seems to me that it’s not the total number that matters, it’s the impact on the female athletes. They now have to wonder, Will there be a male competing against me, and if so what will happen if I protest? I also think we should do everything possible to maintain a meritocracy in every domain. A mediocre male athlete in women’s sports does the opposite. Emmanuel Todd, the French historian who predicted the fall of the Soviet Union, said this: "The renunciation of the meritocratic principle closes the democratic phase of American history." We need to claw our way back to applying the meritocratic principle everywhere we can.
"For me, the pronouns are the same thing – they’re a way of announcing that you are a part of the Good People."
I would largely agree that they tend to be used as such. I do not personally have a problem with pronouns being part of introductions, but the example of the email signature 'mandate' is certainly more problematic than helpful. In general, I think that requiring certain patterns of speech and thought in order to ensure employment and/or social and/or academic inclusion is the main problem with 'wokeness'; so the problem is less the actions and words in themselves, which in many cases have the potential for some benefit, but rather the manner in which they replace free expression and critical thinking.
As for sports, it is more the fact that the vast majority of female sports competitions do not involve trans women who are able to dominate because they used to be men. At the NCAA level, a quick search suggested that there were maybe 50-100 trans women, tops, out of ~500k athletes—which is, at most, 1 for every 5k athletes. (Minimally, there are at least 10 or so, for 1 in every 50k).
As for the numbers at which it becomes a problem, I think that it would never be a big enough problem that national politicians should be getting significantly involved in defense or attack of it. Rather, it should be resolved at a local level by the communities and sports organizations in question. With regard to college sports, I do not trust the NCAA to make decisions that are good for athletes, but I also do not think politicians need to intervene.
As for meritocracy, yes; any deviation from meritocracy ought to require significant evidence-based reasoning.
NCAA Division I has more than 5,000 female swimmers. If one of them is male and he is on the podium three times in the NCAA championships, I think that’s a problem for all 5,000+ female swimmers. (Top 8 reach the podium.) You and I will need to agree to disagree on whether it’s less of a problem because it’s only 1/5,000. Also, the federal government has been intervening in school sports for decades via Title IX. If you oppose that, that’s fine, but it’s nothing new.
I no longer believe there’s a phenomenon based in biology that makes people feel like the opposite sex. (How would anyone really know what the opposite sex feels like anyhow?) There are various reasons why people choose to transition. Some of them know their reasons would be viewed as creepy or distasteful, so they push really hard to get everyone to believe that there’s a biological basis. After having had a front row seat to this, I am quite sure there’s no biological basis, just maladaptive coping mechanisms.
What is the neurological dimorphism? I'm unaware of that evidence.
I am not an expert on the evidence, but there are definitely some neurological differences that correlate strongly but imperfectly to biological sex.
The sexually dimorphic nucleus, which is significantly larger in men, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexually_dimorphic_nucleus) is the most obvious example, but there is at least some evidence of other differences in different structures, functional connections, presence and specific effects of different neurological conditions, etc. (You should be able to find decent scholarly articles on the matter just by searching, if you really want to, though I have yet to find a really good one that isn't paywalled.)
I have yet to seriously investigate how these dimorphisms are expressed in transgender individuals, but I have vaguely seen at least some evidence that it matches gender identity as opposed to biological sex in some individuals in some studies.
Correlation is NOT causation.
True. I am arguing that, if gender is understood as the human social and behavioral counterpart to biological sex as an anatomical reality, and there are neurological differences that correspond to sex, then those neurological differences probably do cause (in part or in whole) differences in gender identity and expression.
In cases of correlation, either one variable causes the other, or the other causes the one, or a separate variable causes both (potentially through long causal change), or they correlate purely out of random coincidence.
Random coincidence seems increasingly unlikely, and it is equally implausible that gender identity causes extreme neurological changes directly.
The most realistic confounding variables that I can currently think of are hormone levels or epigenetic changes in the pre- or early-post-natal environment, which would still have to impact the brain or perception to cause behavioral and identitarian differences. I do appreciate you forcing me to realize that sexual dimorphisms could realistically shape gender identity in ways other than easily-observed brain macro-infrastructure, though.
The book "The End of Gender" covers the topic - I think very well.
My apologies for the length of this reply. The first part is a more or less direct response to your comment; the second part is more my personal musings on the general topic.
With regard to "The End of Gender": I have not read it; thank you for the recommendation, I shall try to read it if I get the chance.
https://thepostmillennial.com/review-the-end-of-gender-by-debra-soh
Based on the above book review, I think I may have some mild points of relative disagreement with the book, though I shall present them in a more hypothetical sense since I am not expert enough on the topic to argue with confidence:
In particularly, I suspect that gender and sex are less likely to be binaries and more likely to be bimodal distributions, which does imply that transgender identities can have a logical, scientific basis.
With regard to sex, the evidence that a bimodal model may work better than a binary has to do with the fact that a) not everyone is XX or XY, and b) hormone levels and other developmental factors do result in some people having genitalia that do not match their chromosomes, which together mean that there is a small but not-insignificant intersex population.
With regard to gender, I think there is likely to at least as varied of a distribution. If we understand gender as being based in neurological differences that cause typical male and female personalities and behaviors—which is not necessarily the most typical definition, but it makes some sense to use here—then it is not unreasonable to posit that individuals would probably show different degrees of divergence from the human mean towards the brain type of one sex or the other, since brain systems and social behaviors are typically highly complex and differences are usually far from discrete.
In general, I am trying to figure out how our society can just recognize that:
1) All humans have a lot in common and are shaped by their genetics and culture in significant and overlapping ways; almost every aspect of our personality comes from both our genes and our lived experience. (Some personality characteristics, and a greater proportion of physical characteristics, are more or less genetic.)
2) Men and women differ in biologically significant ways, including neurologically, but these differences are tendencies rather than universals. (More data is needed in general, and more is needed to be investigated by me, for me to be able to get more specific and confident.)
3) Gender roles are based on universal biological differences but are also culture-specific. Moreover, gender roles and expectations are lumping categories that do not fully reflect anyone's social identity. (Very few, if any, people, are purely stereotypically masculine or feminine.) One can be a masculine woman or a feminine man and nevertheless be a woman and man respectively.
4) There is nothing objectively right or wrong about people being transgender in a factual sense, if we understand "transgender" to mean portraying oneself and acting in accordance with the gender that does not match one's biological sense. It is predominantly a normative issue. Of course, there are facts that are relevant to the discussion, such as the extent to which neurological gender differences line up with biological sex, which is not to my knowledge a fully settled question (I skimmed a few scientific reviews and retain that conclusion: e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-016-0768-5). But ultimately it is a matter of social and linguistic customs, with relevance for some individuals' mental and physical health.
5) Given (4), we should be able to figure this out in a way that protect's people's freedoms, encourages social cohesion, and enhances collective prosperity. My liberal tendencies lead me to believe that the best solution here would be to allow people to identify as the gender they prefer, while recognizing that it is okay for people to dislike, disapprove of, or not understand your social choices as long as they do not actively harm you or constrain your rights. I also believe that we should be able to discuss the topic in good faith as a genuine debate about which social norms are best for our society.
Nobody else knows how Santa Claus flies a sleigh full of presents around the world, either....
Hi, Bill. To be honest, I do not entirely know what point your comment is making, so I cannot really respond to it.
The true purpose of gender in human biology, is for a single male sperm cell, and a single, unfertilized female egg cell, to unite, and form a single fertilized female egg cell. I see NO "binary" there. Gender is unitary. Gender is female, with a male reproductive aspect. So-called "LGBTQ" is a divisive, destructive psy op.
Thank you for clarifying, Bill. I must admit I do not exactly agree with you on this topic.
First of all, I see no meaningful difference between your definition of unitary female + a male repoductive aspect and my definition of binary (female or male). I would also point out that egg cells are not necessarily female in the typical sense of the term, since about half of fertilized human eggs have XY chromosomes and thus would usually be considered genetically male.
Secondly, homosexuality exists both in animals other than humans and in humans, and gender queerness has a long history in a variety of human cultures, so your claim that 'LGBQ is a psy op', at the very least, is simply false. When it comes to the current versions of transsexuality and transgenderness, I see little evidence that it is a top-down psychological operation, nor do I think it is inherently destructive.
As a final note, I would prefer for you to phrase your comments to make it clearer that you are commenting in good faith and trying to expand both your own and other people's understanding of the topic. To that end, greater elaboration and intellectual humility might be useful.
"Binary", as applied to human gender, didn't enter common usage until AFTER "binary", as in "computer binary code" did. But "0's" & "1's" in binary code do not transform into each other. Human gender is both sides of the same coin. In gender ideology, gender is seen as a dime & a nickel. Not the same.
2. Yes, FERTILIZED female egg cells. Whose body are they in? The female! For the next 9 months. Same for fertilized female eggs containing XX chromosomes.
3.Animal sexuality is not directly relevant to human sexuality discussions.
4."Gender queerness" has no scientific definition. It's pure ideology, basically opinion. Neither provable, not falsifiable. NOBODY can "prove" that ANYBODY is, or isn't "queer".
5. WPATH. Globalist. Davos-WEF-Klaus Schwab, technocracy & transhumanism. So-called "trans" people are NOT human. they are TRANS-human. And technocracized.
As for my "humility", I am the most humble man in town, and supremely self-confident. I love God more than He loves me. I also have a sense of humor.
Think about it. When you were born, did your brain know how to understand and speak English? So how does a baby "know" which gender it is?....
Thanks for writing this. I’ve been waiting for a compilation of all the Hollywood trans kids. Seems like there is a new one everyday. You have to wonder what’s going on when both Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez produce two trans kids during their second term.
A good thesis as to why so many Hollywood celebrities have trans kids.
I have a corollary question - if this was YOUR adolescent/young adult child outside of the 'celebrity cult' - and s/he came to you and told you that she believed that she was actually the opposite sex, would you still embrace her as you did before, love her as you did before?
I think of my children and while I wouldn't want that to be the case for them - for a variety of reasons - as a mother I would feel very protective of them and I would want them to know that I will always love them no matter what the circumstances would be. I would stand by & up for them to show to THEM that there was someone on their side & so that they wouldn't feel abandoned or alone. I don't have the answer. Just wondered what others thought.
Sometimes the best way to say you love someone is to tell them NO, SORRY, YOU HAVE A DICK AND I WILL NOT LET YOU CUT IT OFF IN FEALTY TO A CULT.
That's all.
I am actually in this position. My now 20 year old daughter started using a male name and pronouns at school when she was 14. It took me a while to find out what was going on. She’s now fully entrenched in this, but fortunately has not pursued any medicalization. It has been the worst experience of my life, watching my child be manipulated by a cult-like community trying to convince her that I hate her, watching her hate and reject herself, and knowing that you cannot control what another person feels or thinks. I will never stop loving my child or wanting what’s best for her, and I would never issue any ultimatums about kicking her out or cutting her off from my love and support. I do have my own lines I can’t cross. I will not lie and call her by another name or call her a man when she is objectively not. I will never allow my money (or insurance that I pay for) to be used toward what I view as self-harm.
Just as I would still love my daughter if she was an addict, or in a terrible relationship she refused to leave, or had an eating disorder, or was homeless and refused help, or got plastic surgery to look like a celebrity, or made her living on Only Fans, I will always still love her. But I can’t pretend to approve of actions I see as harmful, and I can’t lie. I actually don’t think that would be kind and supportive. The relationship was pretty rough for a few years but it’s much better now. She knows how much she’s loved and that we want the best for her. We simply disagree about what the best is. I still have hope that she will come to her senses eventually.
Dee, thank you for that. When our kids are born I imagine most of us think only about the successes they might have. If we actually knew what was ahead of us as parents, I wonder if anyone would take the job.
I’d never, ever be able to stop loving any of my children. I’d always never doubt walking through fire to save them. But the fire Id first choose to walk through with them, if they had developed true gender dysphoria, would be very deep, loving & extensive therapy, to examine the where & how they lost their self acceptance. The grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence. Losing self acceptance & self love is the worst & starts so much self destruction…
There's no such thing as "gender dysphoria." It's a made-up mental illness.
It was invented, or created, NOT "discovered". Along with everything else in the DSM-5.....
Nicely said.
Yes it would be horrible to realize your child is insane & wonder what you did or didnt do that contributed.
narcissism and Munchausen-by-proxy are hand in glove in hollywood
I'm quite certain these folks never "raised" their children. If anything, they had 2-3 illegal nannies raise their kids for them. Being a celebrity demands so much --- parties with Diddy, gala events to dress up for, and all those extra-marital affairs --- keep them away from parental roles only peons have time for.
Any wonder their kids are starved for attention from their ... "parents" ??
This is what happens when we have too much, too much time, too much money, too much of everything and forgot how to earn it, work for it; forgetting where we came from. Boredom amongst celebrities and billionaires has destroyed the American value system, societal norms and opened the door for the evil destructive forces we are now combating. We are not one big rat lab for Fauci and Bill Gates. Transitioning is not the answer for poor parenting and redirecting children to seek constructive healthy ways to express creativity, seek validation or compete with fame of parents to whom they were born. Failed on all accounts, all measures and all standards
Delusional jackwagons, with the financial resources to purchase attention any way they can get it.
Great new list of "celebrities" for me to boycott, Yuri, thank you. Freaks galore. Nutjobs On TV!
Of course, the next logical step is making the expression of your utter revulsion illegal!