Exactly: “A three-year-old boy who prefers his hair long is not announcing that he is a girl; rather, parents who ‘affirm’ their child as a girl for such reasons are revealing their ideology.”
And furthermore, if the authors of the guide claim that it is “normal” for a child’s gender identity to change over time, then it seems that it is not something innate and fixed as they claim…
What doesn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny is the need to make them believe that they are “actually” in the wrong body and that “the only solution” is to undergo chemical and/or surgical modifications to be happy.
If "gender identity" is fluid, why concretize it at all?
Further, what does it mean to "explore" one's "gender identity?" Why can't a child (or an adult, for that matter) just experiment with clothing, hairstyles, mannerisms, hobbies, etc., without it being linked in some unexplainable way to their sex.
To that point - why do we keep changing the words to make things more confusing? Supposedly, a child has a "sex assigned at birth" (actually a doctor or whoever first sees the child records their sex based on observation of the body, which is correct about 99% of the time), but has a "gender identity" at variance with the sex. Either the child has a sex and gender identity is wholly unrelated to the sex, and, therefore, should never result in chemical or surgical alteration of the body, or we need to use consistent language to describe the same thing. Activists have to say the child has a "sex identity" and that the "sex identity" is at odds with the "assigned sex." They then have to argue that the child's sex is determined, not by their own body (which is actually how sex is defined), but by a person's opinion about their body or their opinion of what they would have been if they had been given the choice. If activists actually used the word sex instead of the word gender in describing these things, I don't think they ever would have gotten away with the whole sick scandal.
As a little girl, I loved horses and dogs, and detested dolls and playing "house". Had any steps been taken to make me a fake "boy", I can tell anyone now, at 72, that would have been the biggest mistake of my entire life. Funny how the "experts" can't realize the circular quality of these concepts; "gender" is based on expectations for our biological sex. Personality is not gender, and either sex can have any personality, no medications needed.
The subheadline of today's piece made me gag. I don't recall the last time a headline or subheadline made me gag, but it must have happened only several times in my life.
“A three-year-old boy who prefers his hair long is not announcing that he is a girl; rather, parents who ‘affirm’ their child as a girl for such reasons are revealing their ideology.”
Transhausen by proxy. It’s abuse and I find that it’s practiced by the same people who are still masking outside.
Haha, this stuff would be hilarious if there weren't harm involved.
It also puts me in mind of a term I recently heard, from someone I can't recall--Tooth Fairy science.
Researchers could collect data about how much money the Tooth Fairy leaves under the pillows of children, and they could organize that data according to race, sex, social class, geography, etc. They could then show, say, a correlation between proximity to mountainous territory and the amount of money the child receives. These researchers could note that white children experience more of a delay in money-receiving than children of Asian descent. They might find that children who live east of the Mississippi more often receive coins, where as those west of that mighty river get bills. Fascinating!
Except, of course, it's all bullshit, because THERE IS NO TOOTH FAIRY. No amount of data can let me draw conclusions about the habits, inclinations, or prejudices of a creature that does not exist. It all looks like science, but it's just science-appearing fantasizing.
So with gender identity. I don't care what kind of data Canada collects if the data are based on fairy tales.
The Great Feminization is killing Canada, the UK and Australia. The US is the only English speaking industrialized power left to stop the destruction caused by the woke feminist commies.
Interesting. So, by this you seem to deny membership of anybody adopting the woke ideology to the group called "feminists". I think there a lot of people that would claim the opposite.
UK feminist Bindel says in the US feminist has become a word that self identified feminists latch onto to name their own ad hoc identity which in reality has nothing to do with feminism.
"it became clear that in the American discourse, “feminist” was any woman – or man – who claimed to be one"
The rules derived from the Great Feminization provide protection for almost any self-identified identity. Woke is the same as the Great Feminization. It is a luxury virtue signaling ideology for the elite upper class.
This is complete madness. Can anything be done to stop them?
Exactly: “A three-year-old boy who prefers his hair long is not announcing that he is a girl; rather, parents who ‘affirm’ their child as a girl for such reasons are revealing their ideology.”
And furthermore, if the authors of the guide claim that it is “normal” for a child’s gender identity to change over time, then it seems that it is not something innate and fixed as they claim…
What doesn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny is the need to make them believe that they are “actually” in the wrong body and that “the only solution” is to undergo chemical and/or surgical modifications to be happy.
If "gender identity" is fluid, why concretize it at all?
Further, what does it mean to "explore" one's "gender identity?" Why can't a child (or an adult, for that matter) just experiment with clothing, hairstyles, mannerisms, hobbies, etc., without it being linked in some unexplainable way to their sex.
To that point - why do we keep changing the words to make things more confusing? Supposedly, a child has a "sex assigned at birth" (actually a doctor or whoever first sees the child records their sex based on observation of the body, which is correct about 99% of the time), but has a "gender identity" at variance with the sex. Either the child has a sex and gender identity is wholly unrelated to the sex, and, therefore, should never result in chemical or surgical alteration of the body, or we need to use consistent language to describe the same thing. Activists have to say the child has a "sex identity" and that the "sex identity" is at odds with the "assigned sex." They then have to argue that the child's sex is determined, not by their own body (which is actually how sex is defined), but by a person's opinion about their body or their opinion of what they would have been if they had been given the choice. If activists actually used the word sex instead of the word gender in describing these things, I don't think they ever would have gotten away with the whole sick scandal.
As a little girl, I loved horses and dogs, and detested dolls and playing "house". Had any steps been taken to make me a fake "boy", I can tell anyone now, at 72, that would have been the biggest mistake of my entire life. Funny how the "experts" can't realize the circular quality of these concepts; "gender" is based on expectations for our biological sex. Personality is not gender, and either sex can have any personality, no medications needed.
The subheadline of today's piece made me gag. I don't recall the last time a headline or subheadline made me gag, but it must have happened only several times in my life.
“A three-year-old boy who prefers his hair long is not announcing that he is a girl; rather, parents who ‘affirm’ their child as a girl for such reasons are revealing their ideology.”
Transhausen by proxy. It’s abuse and I find that it’s practiced by the same people who are still masking outside.
Haha, this stuff would be hilarious if there weren't harm involved.
It also puts me in mind of a term I recently heard, from someone I can't recall--Tooth Fairy science.
Researchers could collect data about how much money the Tooth Fairy leaves under the pillows of children, and they could organize that data according to race, sex, social class, geography, etc. They could then show, say, a correlation between proximity to mountainous territory and the amount of money the child receives. These researchers could note that white children experience more of a delay in money-receiving than children of Asian descent. They might find that children who live east of the Mississippi more often receive coins, where as those west of that mighty river get bills. Fascinating!
Except, of course, it's all bullshit, because THERE IS NO TOOTH FAIRY. No amount of data can let me draw conclusions about the habits, inclinations, or prejudices of a creature that does not exist. It all looks like science, but it's just science-appearing fantasizing.
So with gender identity. I don't care what kind of data Canada collects if the data are based on fairy tales.
Helen Joyce has used the term 'tooth fairy science' I think
The Great Feminization is killing Canada, the UK and Australia. The US is the only English speaking industrialized power left to stop the destruction caused by the woke feminist commies.
actual feminists oppose policies based on gender activism.
Interesting. So, by this you seem to deny membership of anybody adopting the woke ideology to the group called "feminists". I think there a lot of people that would claim the opposite.
a lot of people claim to be a lot of things.
UK feminist Bindel says in the US feminist has become a word that self identified feminists latch onto to name their own ad hoc identity which in reality has nothing to do with feminism.
"it became clear that in the American discourse, “feminist” was any woman – or man – who claimed to be one"
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/5/30/american-progressives-better-learn-what-a-feminist-is
The rules derived from the Great Feminization provide protection for almost any self-identified identity. Woke is the same as the Great Feminization. It is a luxury virtue signaling ideology for the elite upper class.
we all live under the same sky.