Key authors—Arendt, Scott, Łobaczewski, Orlov, Scheidel, Le Bon, Toynbee, Graeber, and Jung—converge on a clear-eyed diagnosis of the current Canadian situation. Arendt sees in it the banality of bureaucratic evil: civil servants applying procedures without genuine moral judgment, as in the handling of complaints at the Bar or the expansion of MAiD. Scott recognizes in it the logic of high modernity: the state reduces human complexity (attachment to one's home, deep convictions, freedom of conscience) to simple administrative categories, producing an uncorrectable visibility. Łobaczewski speaks of a soft pathocracy, where the system naturally selects those who adapt to the coldness of procedure. Orlov sees in it the first signs of political and social closure, while Scheidel sees a rigidification of the elites that blocks mobility and accumulates tensions. Toynbee would diagnose a petrification of the creative elites who have become dominant: instead of responding creatively to challenges, they protect themselves with administrative and ideological routines, accelerating the internal decline of a civilization. Graeber would emphasize the absurd and violent bureaucratic dimension: the system imposes useless and restrictive rules that stifle human imagination and creativity, transforming citizens into mere subjects. Jung, with his concept of enantiodromia (the swing of the pendulum), would add that any tendency pushed to extremes eventually generates its opposite: the more technocratic and administrative closure intensifies, the more it generates existential fatigue and resistance that, at some point, will tip in the other direction. Le Bon would finally remind us that people tolerate this closure for a long time as long as the discourse remains coherent, but that a saturation point can be suddenly crossed, leading to a brutal and emotional reversal. In Canada, we are not experiencing violent persecution, but rather a profound and insidious transformation: a legal, administrative, and cultural closure that wears us down slowly rather than striking us directly, while simultaneously creating the conditions for its own future rejection. We are not returning to the world as it was before; we are moving toward a new configuration where the tension between technocratic control and human resistance will remain permanent.
In Quebec and Canada, we are not (yet) in a situation of “civil war” in the classical sense of the term, like the one some European analysts fear for the United Kingdom or France. Rather, we are in an advanced stage of societal fracture and institutional closure, which already exhibits several precursors of a gradual balkanization. The most visible division is regional and cultural: Alberta and parts of the Prairies feel increasingly alienated from Ottawa, perceived as a centralizing elite that imposes policies (carbon tax, energy restrictions, mass immigration) contrary to their economic interests and their identity. In Quebec, the tension is twofold: on the one hand, a historical resistance to federal centralization (Legault and Quebec nationalism), and on the other, a growing divide between rural/traditional regions and major urban centers (especially Montreal), where demographics are changing rapidly, and debates on identity, secularism, and reasonable accommodation remain heated. This divide is not yet violent, but it is deep and is being expressed.
I'm not sure, but I'll look into it in the literature.
A revolution or rejection is organic, just like a fever. The body (or the society) does not ask permission to react when the pressure becomes too great. While many people already have the will to resist, the real question is whether enough will find the courage — the “balls” — to act when the moment comes.
History shows that when the saturation point is finally crossed, the reaction can be sudden and powerful, even if it starts messy and emotional.
I wonder if the literature can answer the question. I agree with what you say as to 'saturation point', but a populace that has reached the tipping point may yet lack the spine to do what they want to do. Or the tools. In '1984' O'Brian explains how the proles would be kept in slavery forever by not only keeping them stupid and incapable or organization, but also by depriving them of any tools by which they could launch a revolution.
Biologically speaking, there are only two sexes, period. Practically speaking, identification documents present problems. Why do we put biological sex on legal identifying documents? They link back to birth certificates, providing continuity of identity, plus there are real practical and medical reasons. But if a trans person presents at an ID checkpoint, let’s posit looking convincingly like one sex but identified as the other, it poses hassles.
There is a simple solution, though it is probably too guileless and “nonbinary” for our polarized, sophistical culture: call a spade a spade. “Trans women are women” is arm-twisting sophistry. Trans women are … trans women. And vice versa. Let them identify themselves as such. If there is no shame in being transgender, why lie about it? If we are not aiming to outlaw it out of existence (which can’t be done, and shouldn’t be attempted), why not just acknowledge it? A legal ID document would thus indicate both biological sex at birth and, if different, gender of presentation. That would at the very least speed up airport security lines and actually reduce, not increase, discrimination and “misgendering.” You can’t be unjustly unmasked if you’re not masked in the first place
> Mahr chose to critique it from a “feminist epistemology”
How strange the undeniable fact that the erosion of the long established social and legal protections for actual females is driven -- perhaps not exclusively but very largely -- by females. They insist on harming themselves. They demand male rapists be sent to women's prisons, they demand males be permitted to compete with them in sports. Ideology not only trumps reality, it trumps self preservation. Most trannies are girls wanting to be boys and if that entails mutilation and sterilization -- wonderful! One might have predicted that a female who wants to be a male would be committing a sort of gender treason but no. It would seem that penis envy is so pervasive among feminists that when I girl goes for an addadicktome, this is celebrated. Nope, I suppose that if Mahr were ever sent to prison and the warden asked if she'd want to share a cell with Sue -- a 250 lb multiple rapist -- Mahr would answer that OF COURSE she'd welcome Sue. Feminist epistemology requires it.
“THIS is a (VERY dangerous) manufactured controversy, because the basic biological claim that males and females are reproductive classes rooted in anisogamy (sperm vs ova) has not been overturned.” - And it never shall be. Impossible. It is real, ‘hard’ science Reproductive Biology, easily observable every.single.day FACT. (Unless, of course, our species physically changes that on purpose via cloning, or castration and neutering, and moves to test tube reproduction and artificial wombs ie., transhumanism ❌😉)
Yes, that has been [their] End Game from the beginning: The usurpation, capture, and CONTROL of *THE most POWERful Energies of Creation in the Universe*, to mold to [their] own deviant, devious Purpose(s) 👺👾 Very astute, perspicacious observation, Thomas ⚡😎
WRONG! A female is nothing more than anyone who claims to be a female and feminism is just that agenda which advances the interests of people who Identify as female. This is difficult for some because we how have nouns that have no reference to anything but themselves and this is a new thing. Consider an example:
I am a shrognophorian. Now, I hear you ask: 'What on Earth is a shrognophorian? What facts does this term point to?' The answer is that it points to no facts other than that the shrognophorian is a person who Identifies as one. It's a perfect semantic ouroboros.
There are eight genders in the Torah. The Nazis attacked and destroyed the institute for sexual research where the world’s first transgender surgery was performed. All books burned and the Jews behind the Institute are still angry about that. It’s Gnoisticism, the belief they can simply control reality with words.
"There's glory for you!"
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't - till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you'!"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more or less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be Master - that's all."
‘More importantly, the majority signaled its view that the challenged policies likely violate Montana’s constitution, holding that “transgender discrimination is, by its very nature, sex discrimination”…’
My undergraduate legal education told me that all law creates discrimination (driving, marriage, drinking, etc). Civil rights law therefore required the creation of a category of invidious discrimination, and sex discrimination was legislated to be such. Given all of the problems with transgenderism, legal discrimination against it is justified and therefore Montana’s activist conflation of the two is not justified.
'Legal' solution that should 'satisfy' BOTH 'sides': TWO check boxes! One for 'Biological (chromosomal) Sex' - that appears on the physical person's birth certificate - the other for 'Gender Identity' or 'Affiliation'. Easy, simple, crystal clear, and 100% unambiguous (eliminates all doubt and confusion). Wdyt?
Sorry, can’t agree. Allowing a separate ‘gender identity’ on a legal document will always increase confusion, not decrease it, for both individuals and social institutions. The best outcome is to make gender identity a truly private matter between affected individuals and their supportive family and friends, and to ensure ‘supportive’ no longer has the destructive connotations it presently has.
So no 'sex' checkbox at all?? No 'race' either then? We ARE all simply Terrans ('Earth' humans), period. Same reproductively-compatible subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. Right?
This is interpreted by some I believe as harm being the same as questioning of claims made regarding gender dysphoria and its treatment. No debate. To keep them "safe". Similarly for treating sex accurately as fixed for humans and biological.
From medical best practice.
To keep people who don't like their sex and want something else to replace it in policy and language "safe".
It does feel bad to be argued with if you turn out to be wrong. Or when you don't like something about yourself.. But that is no excuse for refusing to correct errors or for publishing incorrect papers in the first place .
Key authors—Arendt, Scott, Łobaczewski, Orlov, Scheidel, Le Bon, Toynbee, Graeber, and Jung—converge on a clear-eyed diagnosis of the current Canadian situation. Arendt sees in it the banality of bureaucratic evil: civil servants applying procedures without genuine moral judgment, as in the handling of complaints at the Bar or the expansion of MAiD. Scott recognizes in it the logic of high modernity: the state reduces human complexity (attachment to one's home, deep convictions, freedom of conscience) to simple administrative categories, producing an uncorrectable visibility. Łobaczewski speaks of a soft pathocracy, where the system naturally selects those who adapt to the coldness of procedure. Orlov sees in it the first signs of political and social closure, while Scheidel sees a rigidification of the elites that blocks mobility and accumulates tensions. Toynbee would diagnose a petrification of the creative elites who have become dominant: instead of responding creatively to challenges, they protect themselves with administrative and ideological routines, accelerating the internal decline of a civilization. Graeber would emphasize the absurd and violent bureaucratic dimension: the system imposes useless and restrictive rules that stifle human imagination and creativity, transforming citizens into mere subjects. Jung, with his concept of enantiodromia (the swing of the pendulum), would add that any tendency pushed to extremes eventually generates its opposite: the more technocratic and administrative closure intensifies, the more it generates existential fatigue and resistance that, at some point, will tip in the other direction. Le Bon would finally remind us that people tolerate this closure for a long time as long as the discourse remains coherent, but that a saturation point can be suddenly crossed, leading to a brutal and emotional reversal. In Canada, we are not experiencing violent persecution, but rather a profound and insidious transformation: a legal, administrative, and cultural closure that wears us down slowly rather than striking us directly, while simultaneously creating the conditions for its own future rejection. We are not returning to the world as it was before; we are moving toward a new configuration where the tension between technocratic control and human resistance will remain permanent.
In Quebec and Canada, we are not (yet) in a situation of “civil war” in the classical sense of the term, like the one some European analysts fear for the United Kingdom or France. Rather, we are in an advanced stage of societal fracture and institutional closure, which already exhibits several precursors of a gradual balkanization. The most visible division is regional and cultural: Alberta and parts of the Prairies feel increasingly alienated from Ottawa, perceived as a centralizing elite that imposes policies (carbon tax, energy restrictions, mass immigration) contrary to their economic interests and their identity. In Quebec, the tension is twofold: on the one hand, a historical resistance to federal centralization (Legault and Quebec nationalism), and on the other, a growing divide between rural/traditional regions and major urban centers (especially Montreal), where demographics are changing rapidly, and debates on identity, secularism, and reasonable accommodation remain heated. This divide is not yet violent, but it is deep and is being expressed.
> while simultaneously creating the conditions for its own future rejection
But will the strength to resist be there? Many have the will, but do they have the balls?
I'm not sure, but I'll look into it in the literature.
A revolution or rejection is organic, just like a fever. The body (or the society) does not ask permission to react when the pressure becomes too great. While many people already have the will to resist, the real question is whether enough will find the courage — the “balls” — to act when the moment comes.
History shows that when the saturation point is finally crossed, the reaction can be sudden and powerful, even if it starts messy and emotional.
I wonder if the literature can answer the question. I agree with what you say as to 'saturation point', but a populace that has reached the tipping point may yet lack the spine to do what they want to do. Or the tools. In '1984' O'Brian explains how the proles would be kept in slavery forever by not only keeping them stupid and incapable or organization, but also by depriving them of any tools by which they could launch a revolution.
Makes sense!
Biologically speaking, there are only two sexes, period. Practically speaking, identification documents present problems. Why do we put biological sex on legal identifying documents? They link back to birth certificates, providing continuity of identity, plus there are real practical and medical reasons. But if a trans person presents at an ID checkpoint, let’s posit looking convincingly like one sex but identified as the other, it poses hassles.
There is a simple solution, though it is probably too guileless and “nonbinary” for our polarized, sophistical culture: call a spade a spade. “Trans women are women” is arm-twisting sophistry. Trans women are … trans women. And vice versa. Let them identify themselves as such. If there is no shame in being transgender, why lie about it? If we are not aiming to outlaw it out of existence (which can’t be done, and shouldn’t be attempted), why not just acknowledge it? A legal ID document would thus indicate both biological sex at birth and, if different, gender of presentation. That would at the very least speed up airport security lines and actually reduce, not increase, discrimination and “misgendering.” You can’t be unjustly unmasked if you’re not masked in the first place
Solution: TWO check boxes!
> Mahr chose to critique it from a “feminist epistemology”
How strange the undeniable fact that the erosion of the long established social and legal protections for actual females is driven -- perhaps not exclusively but very largely -- by females. They insist on harming themselves. They demand male rapists be sent to women's prisons, they demand males be permitted to compete with them in sports. Ideology not only trumps reality, it trumps self preservation. Most trannies are girls wanting to be boys and if that entails mutilation and sterilization -- wonderful! One might have predicted that a female who wants to be a male would be committing a sort of gender treason but no. It would seem that penis envy is so pervasive among feminists that when I girl goes for an addadicktome, this is celebrated. Nope, I suppose that if Mahr were ever sent to prison and the warden asked if she'd want to share a cell with Sue -- a 250 lb multiple rapist -- Mahr would answer that OF COURSE she'd welcome Sue. Feminist epistemology requires it.
“THIS is a (VERY dangerous) manufactured controversy, because the basic biological claim that males and females are reproductive classes rooted in anisogamy (sperm vs ova) has not been overturned.” - And it never shall be. Impossible. It is real, ‘hard’ science Reproductive Biology, easily observable every.single.day FACT. (Unless, of course, our species physically changes that on purpose via cloning, or castration and neutering, and moves to test tube reproduction and artificial wombs ie., transhumanism ❌😉)
Your ‘unless’ is partly the point of all this.
Yes, that has been [their] End Game from the beginning: The usurpation, capture, and CONTROL of *THE most POWERful Energies of Creation in the Universe*, to mold to [their] own deviant, devious Purpose(s) 👺👾 Very astute, perspicacious observation, Thomas ⚡😎
Your observation first.
What I would like to know is how feminism is defined, given the difficulties with knowing what a female is.
WRONG! A female is nothing more than anyone who claims to be a female and feminism is just that agenda which advances the interests of people who Identify as female. This is difficult for some because we how have nouns that have no reference to anything but themselves and this is a new thing. Consider an example:
I am a shrognophorian. Now, I hear you ask: 'What on Earth is a shrognophorian? What facts does this term point to?' The answer is that it points to no facts other than that the shrognophorian is a person who Identifies as one. It's a perfect semantic ouroboros.
There are eight genders in the Torah. The Nazis attacked and destroyed the institute for sexual research where the world’s first transgender surgery was performed. All books burned and the Jews behind the Institute are still angry about that. It’s Gnoisticism, the belief they can simply control reality with words.
"There's glory for you!"
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't - till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you'!"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more or less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be Master - that's all."
-- Alice in Wonderland
‘More importantly, the majority signaled its view that the challenged policies likely violate Montana’s constitution, holding that “transgender discrimination is, by its very nature, sex discrimination”…’
My undergraduate legal education told me that all law creates discrimination (driving, marriage, drinking, etc). Civil rights law therefore required the creation of a category of invidious discrimination, and sex discrimination was legislated to be such. Given all of the problems with transgenderism, legal discrimination against it is justified and therefore Montana’s activist conflation of the two is not justified.
'Legal' solution that should 'satisfy' BOTH 'sides': TWO check boxes! One for 'Biological (chromosomal) Sex' - that appears on the physical person's birth certificate - the other for 'Gender Identity' or 'Affiliation'. Easy, simple, crystal clear, and 100% unambiguous (eliminates all doubt and confusion). Wdyt?
Sorry, can’t agree. Allowing a separate ‘gender identity’ on a legal document will always increase confusion, not decrease it, for both individuals and social institutions. The best outcome is to make gender identity a truly private matter between affected individuals and their supportive family and friends, and to ensure ‘supportive’ no longer has the destructive connotations it presently has.
So no 'sex' checkbox at all?? No 'race' either then? We ARE all simply Terrans ('Earth' humans), period. Same reproductively-compatible subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. Right?
Agree 100%!
Many journals are not doing their job, out of a misplaced sense of duty. There are policies to not harm communities, I think Nature has that?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2
This is interpreted by some I believe as harm being the same as questioning of claims made regarding gender dysphoria and its treatment. No debate. To keep them "safe". Similarly for treating sex accurately as fixed for humans and biological.
From medical best practice.
To keep people who don't like their sex and want something else to replace it in policy and language "safe".
It does feel bad to be argued with if you turn out to be wrong. Or when you don't like something about yourself.. But that is no excuse for refusing to correct errors or for publishing incorrect papers in the first place .