That the library stood up for you, and you were allowed to give your talk, gives me hope that folks may start to act a little more reasonably. And I'm pretty sure your talk did not kill any bug or human offspring.
Apparently the protesters were so afraid of exposure to your ideas that they couldn't even allow themselves a moment of curiosity about them. Their need to insulate themselves from everything except simplistic, rigidly embraced slogans suggests that the protesters feel unable to defend their beliefs, even to themselves. This is a realistic position, considering how untenable their beliefs are. Beyond that, however, these individuals present themselves as "existentially threatened" by exposure to ideas that differ from the dogmas they have been taught. Such a sense of fragility they must have, to make them cling to a crackpot idea as if it were a life raft in a storm!
The freedom to speak is oddly censored by the freedom of speech. It seems any rational disagreement is offset by claims of anti this or that when in fact one doesn’t have to be anti-people to fundamentally oppose any idea or practice. If truth is the goal, then sitting at the discussion table needs no signs nor protest. It requires presence of body and mind and a willingness to start a conversation. We are in a time where the intellect cowers behind cursory feelings that admittedly alter with mood, time, place, circumstance, experience, and influence.
Blanchard, Bailey, Zucker and Cantor, the 4 "sexologist" promoters of "normalcy" for cross-dressing men, all operated on the assumption that their goal was to make the wives stay in the marriages and prove this was "just a variation" in sexual practices. They did not come clean about the freakish fantasies of their subjects, who typically were middle-aged family men, fathers of children. They coerced and pressured the wives, women like me, to "try it out." In a 2002 Atlantic Monthly article (now scrubbed from its archives, but preserved at childrenoftransition.org) Blanchard says, (oh so casually) "They have a disconnect between reality and their fantasy. It's too disruptive to acknowledge that you wish your penis was part of your wife's body and not yours. It's too disruptive to acknowledge that this is a sexual compulsion." Then the 4 Musketeers of Sex went on to formulate several different categories of this fetish, while not calling it a fetish, "homosexual transsexual, transvestite, autogynophile," &etc, making money with books having titles like "The Man Who Would Be Queen." The Judith Butlers of the world decided to add their own spin with their own incomprehensible "gender studies" books, which oddly promote sex stereotypes. I have no problem with leaving the Left, which I grew up in during my Madison Wisconsin childhood. In the 1970s political meetings, the Leftist men would send out "the girls" for sandwiches and more beer. They are walking on a sea of their own petards, like mystics tiptoeing over the bed of coals. For the real deal, from an ex escort:
"I find it difficult to comprehend how a discussion on the connection between sex and gametes could result in fatalities, but perhaps my imagination is lacking"
It's simple, really, Colin. You're a warlock, you have sold your soul to transphobic satan, so when you say the words "sex and gametes" the words become black magic that awakens the gender demons.
How can you expect real questions from cultists who rely on “feelings” rather than facts.If they really looked at facts and their ideology were based on those, there would be no reason to react with emotional outbursts and rage.
We should probably bring a little teleology into embryology. Just basic stuff, like the fact that all human embryos would be female if it weren't for testosterone. And given that Y chromosomes cause testosterone production, human embryos are 'supposed to' develop into male or female foetuses. And given the wonderful way that the same basic tubular structure can fold and close in different ways, the resulting Müllerian Ducts or Wolffian Ducts can occasionally make errors in the ways they develop and close up. And there you have it: embryological errors causing intersex presentations.
I would not suggest that any human be called an error, a mistake or anything like that. But we must recognise that sometimes the recipe does not come out of the oven quite right. Just as when your egg custard separates, or your soufflé doesn't rise, you have not made a third desirable dish, you have made a mistake. Same ingredients, slightly different proportions, very different intended results, but then it goes wrong. Any cook knows what I mean. So do embryologists.
There's a reason the demonstrators declined your invitation. In their post truth epistemology, facts and logic, indeed, an external reality are all the invention of the white European cis heteronormative patriarchal cultural colonialists erected to oppress everyone else. The modes of verbal disagreement favored by that regime must be discarded in favor of naked power exercised by the print and other media and by silencing any dissent by force when intimidation fails.
Thanks for this excellent article and for all you do. Note that you appear to have two different versions of this paragraph toward the bottom; I assume you intended to delete one. The phenomenon you identify is a huge problem everywhere. When Fox News tried to tell its audience that Biden had won the election legitimately, it lost viewers to more extreme outlets that would tell viewers what they wanted to hear.
I used to blame Left-wing media for depriving their viewers and listeners of a full spectrum of viewpoints. While they certainly deserve most of the blame, this event made me realize more than ever that many in their audience don’t even want to be exposed to other viewpoints. The protesters at my event drove miles to the venue, yet all decided to stop 10 feet before the entrance so they could protest views they didn’t even hear.
Initially, I was inclined to fault Left-wing media for depriving their audience of the full spectrum of viewpoints. While they certainly bear some responsibility, this event has convinced me that many members of their audience are not even open to hearing alternative perspectives. The protesters at my event traveled miles to attend, but chose to stop ten feet shy of the entrance to protest views they had not yet even heard.
Edit: This is actually Leslie. e-mail mixup at Substack.
Nobody talking about trans issues ever seems to want to talk about sexual attraction and relations. You know, actual fucking. Doesn't anybody do this anymore? Or even think about it?
Sure, transwomen should be kept out of women's prisons, sports, shelters and bathrooms, and they shouldn't be allowed to cause children to become confused about their bodies. Absolutely. But for most ordinary people, we look at a transwoman and our first thought is, "No way."
When people say "Transwomen are women", I want to ask them this (so here I am asking it):
If you are a woman-attracted person, i.e., a straight cis-man or a lesbian cis-woman*, would you be willing, in principle, to have sex with a transwoman? Of course you wouldn't. Because transwomen are men. Because they have a penis. And if you only like women you aren't going to have sex with a body with a penis. Even if you don't want to touch it or suck it or put it in you, *he's* going to want you to. This is just so obvious I don't know why people don't talk about it in any of these talks about reasonable restrictions on the rights of transgender people. It's not their rights that carry the day, it's the fact of total sexual incompatibility with people who like women.
If a man tries to say he *would* have sex with a transwoman, then he is saying he is at least somewhat bisexual (or truly gay). Fine, be who you are. But be honest that you are attracted to a man. If you would fuck a transwoman, you're not straight.
If a woman says she would have sex with a transwoman, then she is saying that she is really at least somewhat bisexual (or really straight.) Again, fine, but be honest about what you are attracted to.
I will bet that 95% of "women" who say they are attracted to transwomen are really transwomen themselves trying to hope that you didn't notice it when you asked them the question. Just like transwomen who claim that "real" lesbians (like them) embrace transwomen when of course "real" lesbians want nothing to do with them.
As soon as you get talking about actual sexual activity, the whole "transwomen are women, transmen are men" thing collapses like a cheap lawn chair. Only homosexuals are attracted to trans people, and transitioning was what the transitioners did to avoid having to be gay!
*I apologize for calling people cis because I think it's a slur to refer to perfectly normal people with made-up words like cis. It's like calling someone "Whitey". I just want to be absolutely clear that when I talk about "men" and "women" I don't mean that women need to be called cis in order not to have transwomen included therein.
The April 21st episode of Real Time with Bill Maher talked about a number of trans issues with Rep Katie Porter and Piers Morgan. It was an absolutely brilliant episode that I recommend anyone watch. Maher is definitely left-wing, although he's certainly not woke.
That said, I have trouble finding any other examples of mainstream media discussing trans issues. The closest I've see are recent Dr Phil episodes.
Colin, what happened to your latest article on Reality's Last Stand, the one titled A Biologist Explains Why Sex is Binary with the subtitle "In an effort to confuse the issue, gender ideologues cite rare ambiguous ‘intersex’ cases" posted today, May 2nd? Did you take it down for some reason or did someone else remove it? I know the article exists because I still have it in my email.
It's very strange that that free speech can supposedly kill somebody. I've never seen that. I do see violence being done by those who want to censor biological truth, however. And killing too, like by that young adult female in Nashville.
Power to you Colin smart organised people like you and JK and Kathleen Stock are so effective, because you manage to stay so calm and nice. I find I go red and start crying when I get stressed and upset talking to people about this.
"Willful ignorance is a devastating affliction without a cure." Can I make a T-shirt out of this quote!
That the library stood up for you, and you were allowed to give your talk, gives me hope that folks may start to act a little more reasonably. And I'm pretty sure your talk did not kill any bug or human offspring.
Apparently the protesters were so afraid of exposure to your ideas that they couldn't even allow themselves a moment of curiosity about them. Their need to insulate themselves from everything except simplistic, rigidly embraced slogans suggests that the protesters feel unable to defend their beliefs, even to themselves. This is a realistic position, considering how untenable their beliefs are. Beyond that, however, these individuals present themselves as "existentially threatened" by exposure to ideas that differ from the dogmas they have been taught. Such a sense of fragility they must have, to make them cling to a crackpot idea as if it were a life raft in a storm!
The freedom to speak is oddly censored by the freedom of speech. It seems any rational disagreement is offset by claims of anti this or that when in fact one doesn’t have to be anti-people to fundamentally oppose any idea or practice. If truth is the goal, then sitting at the discussion table needs no signs nor protest. It requires presence of body and mind and a willingness to start a conversation. We are in a time where the intellect cowers behind cursory feelings that admittedly alter with mood, time, place, circumstance, experience, and influence.
Blanchard, Bailey, Zucker and Cantor, the 4 "sexologist" promoters of "normalcy" for cross-dressing men, all operated on the assumption that their goal was to make the wives stay in the marriages and prove this was "just a variation" in sexual practices. They did not come clean about the freakish fantasies of their subjects, who typically were middle-aged family men, fathers of children. They coerced and pressured the wives, women like me, to "try it out." In a 2002 Atlantic Monthly article (now scrubbed from its archives, but preserved at childrenoftransition.org) Blanchard says, (oh so casually) "They have a disconnect between reality and their fantasy. It's too disruptive to acknowledge that you wish your penis was part of your wife's body and not yours. It's too disruptive to acknowledge that this is a sexual compulsion." Then the 4 Musketeers of Sex went on to formulate several different categories of this fetish, while not calling it a fetish, "homosexual transsexual, transvestite, autogynophile," &etc, making money with books having titles like "The Man Who Would Be Queen." The Judith Butlers of the world decided to add their own spin with their own incomprehensible "gender studies" books, which oddly promote sex stereotypes. I have no problem with leaving the Left, which I grew up in during my Madison Wisconsin childhood. In the 1970s political meetings, the Leftist men would send out "the girls" for sandwiches and more beer. They are walking on a sea of their own petards, like mystics tiptoeing over the bed of coals. For the real deal, from an ex escort:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB_Htt42Xeo&t=9s
"I find it difficult to comprehend how a discussion on the connection between sex and gametes could result in fatalities, but perhaps my imagination is lacking"
It's simple, really, Colin. You're a warlock, you have sold your soul to transphobic satan, so when you say the words "sex and gametes" the words become black magic that awakens the gender demons.
How can you expect real questions from cultists who rely on “feelings” rather than facts.If they really looked at facts and their ideology were based on those, there would be no reason to react with emotional outbursts and rage.
We should probably bring a little teleology into embryology. Just basic stuff, like the fact that all human embryos would be female if it weren't for testosterone. And given that Y chromosomes cause testosterone production, human embryos are 'supposed to' develop into male or female foetuses. And given the wonderful way that the same basic tubular structure can fold and close in different ways, the resulting Müllerian Ducts or Wolffian Ducts can occasionally make errors in the ways they develop and close up. And there you have it: embryological errors causing intersex presentations.
I would not suggest that any human be called an error, a mistake or anything like that. But we must recognise that sometimes the recipe does not come out of the oven quite right. Just as when your egg custard separates, or your soufflé doesn't rise, you have not made a third desirable dish, you have made a mistake. Same ingredients, slightly different proportions, very different intended results, but then it goes wrong. Any cook knows what I mean. So do embryologists.
There's a reason the demonstrators declined your invitation. In their post truth epistemology, facts and logic, indeed, an external reality are all the invention of the white European cis heteronormative patriarchal cultural colonialists erected to oppress everyone else. The modes of verbal disagreement favored by that regime must be discarded in favor of naked power exercised by the print and other media and by silencing any dissent by force when intimidation fails.
Thanks for this excellent article and for all you do. Note that you appear to have two different versions of this paragraph toward the bottom; I assume you intended to delete one. The phenomenon you identify is a huge problem everywhere. When Fox News tried to tell its audience that Biden had won the election legitimately, it lost viewers to more extreme outlets that would tell viewers what they wanted to hear.
I used to blame Left-wing media for depriving their viewers and listeners of a full spectrum of viewpoints. While they certainly deserve most of the blame, this event made me realize more than ever that many in their audience don’t even want to be exposed to other viewpoints. The protesters at my event drove miles to the venue, yet all decided to stop 10 feet before the entrance so they could protest views they didn’t even hear.
Initially, I was inclined to fault Left-wing media for depriving their audience of the full spectrum of viewpoints. While they certainly bear some responsibility, this event has convinced me that many members of their audience are not even open to hearing alternative perspectives. The protesters at my event traveled miles to attend, but chose to stop ten feet shy of the entrance to protest views they had not yet even heard.
Edit: This is actually Leslie. e-mail mixup at Substack.
Nobody talking about trans issues ever seems to want to talk about sexual attraction and relations. You know, actual fucking. Doesn't anybody do this anymore? Or even think about it?
Sure, transwomen should be kept out of women's prisons, sports, shelters and bathrooms, and they shouldn't be allowed to cause children to become confused about their bodies. Absolutely. But for most ordinary people, we look at a transwoman and our first thought is, "No way."
When people say "Transwomen are women", I want to ask them this (so here I am asking it):
If you are a woman-attracted person, i.e., a straight cis-man or a lesbian cis-woman*, would you be willing, in principle, to have sex with a transwoman? Of course you wouldn't. Because transwomen are men. Because they have a penis. And if you only like women you aren't going to have sex with a body with a penis. Even if you don't want to touch it or suck it or put it in you, *he's* going to want you to. This is just so obvious I don't know why people don't talk about it in any of these talks about reasonable restrictions on the rights of transgender people. It's not their rights that carry the day, it's the fact of total sexual incompatibility with people who like women.
If a man tries to say he *would* have sex with a transwoman, then he is saying he is at least somewhat bisexual (or truly gay). Fine, be who you are. But be honest that you are attracted to a man. If you would fuck a transwoman, you're not straight.
If a woman says she would have sex with a transwoman, then she is saying that she is really at least somewhat bisexual (or really straight.) Again, fine, but be honest about what you are attracted to.
I will bet that 95% of "women" who say they are attracted to transwomen are really transwomen themselves trying to hope that you didn't notice it when you asked them the question. Just like transwomen who claim that "real" lesbians (like them) embrace transwomen when of course "real" lesbians want nothing to do with them.
As soon as you get talking about actual sexual activity, the whole "transwomen are women, transmen are men" thing collapses like a cheap lawn chair. Only homosexuals are attracted to trans people, and transitioning was what the transitioners did to avoid having to be gay!
*I apologize for calling people cis because I think it's a slur to refer to perfectly normal people with made-up words like cis. It's like calling someone "Whitey". I just want to be absolutely clear that when I talk about "men" and "women" I don't mean that women need to be called cis in order not to have transwomen included therein.
The April 21st episode of Real Time with Bill Maher talked about a number of trans issues with Rep Katie Porter and Piers Morgan. It was an absolutely brilliant episode that I recommend anyone watch. Maher is definitely left-wing, although he's certainly not woke.
That said, I have trouble finding any other examples of mainstream media discussing trans issues. The closest I've see are recent Dr Phil episodes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTSE2C8E_5I&list=PLgCCULqQ1mqHbKMR7OgptTPgXUGR9dKmb
Colin, what happened to your latest article on Reality's Last Stand, the one titled A Biologist Explains Why Sex is Binary with the subtitle "In an effort to confuse the issue, gender ideologues cite rare ambiguous ‘intersex’ cases" posted today, May 2nd? Did you take it down for some reason or did someone else remove it? I know the article exists because I still have it in my email.
This is a NYT's article written 35 yrs ago which succinctly and definitively sums up just how different men and women are. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/14/magazine/body-and-mind-the-aggressors.html?smid=em-share
I don't see a sign that says:
"Speech that maims kids is free."
It's very strange that that free speech can supposedly kill somebody. I've never seen that. I do see violence being done by those who want to censor biological truth, however. And killing too, like by that young adult female in Nashville.
Power to you Colin smart organised people like you and JK and Kathleen Stock are so effective, because you manage to stay so calm and nice. I find I go red and start crying when I get stressed and upset talking to people about this.