Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

[Rhythmik]

Nice 3 hour interview with the brilliant Peterson

https://youtu.be/USg3NR76XpQ?ecver=1


and his previous appearance on the Rogan podcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE

 

[Anthony]

Nice 3 hour interview with the brilliant Peterson

https://youtu.be/USg3NR76XpQ?ecver=1


and his previous appearance on the Rogan podcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE

Thanks for sharing, it's another great interview with Peterson.

One of the commentators on YouTube posted a brief overview of the things being discussed:

0:30 - denied a grant to research political correctness?
3:30 - hammer & sickle vs nazi symbol
8:00 - allies and social points
13:15 - the gender unicorn
17:20 - those who claim to be legitimate representatives of a community vs heterogeneous views within
23:00 - post-modern neo Marxist using trans issues as a lever to push political nonsense
27:45 - Zer
30:45 - post-modernists opposed to having dialogues
41:00 - we are in a war of ideas
46:45 - teach people evil to help them understand themselves
48:00 - university's monitoring, intervention, and threat of student's private utterances on social media
50:20 - mansplaining
53:00 - best personality predictor of political correctness is the agreeableness trait
54:00 - causes for violence by the left
57:00 - the dominance hierarchy, Hitler
1:10:00 - good vs evil
1:13:30 - fight or flight or freeze
1:18:00 - bargaining with the future
1:23:30 - men were competing for influence, corruption leadership to attract women; hero
1:28:30 - men competing as allies to beat the hierarchy
1:31:00 - kek the frog; period of chaos
1:35:00 - tell the truth to deal with chaos in the underworld
1:41:30 - clean up your room before you try and change the outside
1:48:00 - morality comes when you are a monster and you can control it
1:58:00 - order, corruption, chaos
2:04:30 - 90% of my viewers and men
2:09:00 - accept your mortality
2:14:00 - future authoring and finding a purpose
2:17:00 - you cant trust yourself if you lie
2:28:00 - the biggest employment category (driver) is disappearing; the future is uncertain
2:31:30 - trump - unstructured problem with truth vs Hillary - structured problem with untruth
2:33:00 - you are in the top 1% too
2:37:00 - creative people is a double-edged blessing; you stand out - you die
2:41:30 - Canada suppresses excellence while USA celebrates it
2:43:20 - hierarchies are no always based on power but on competence
2:47:30 - why the university backed off from Peterson

 

[Cosmos]

George Carlin noticed the mess already creeping in many years ago:

https://youtu.be/o25I2fzFGoY

If he would still be alive he probably would be amazed and shocked how much worse it can really get.

 

[Joe]

Came across Thomas Sowell recently, and he makes a lot of sense (and has been doing so for a long time) about the current identity politics and "social justice" issues that are being debated today.

In this first video from 1981, he makes many points that are very valid today

https://youtu.be/nxygmc_SMAU

Here's another one from more recently that is also very useful. There are many more on YT that are worth watching.

https://youtu.be/9ESlS2jrhXY

 

[whitecoast]

Thanks for sharing Joe, I also like Walter E. Williams, who is an economist but talks a lot on race as well. He doesn't really talk about CIA meddling and smuggling of drugs into black communities while launching the war on drugs though. I mean he does talk about the effects of government on school quality, the effects of welfare on industriousness, and single motherhood on the success of children, but it needs a bit more context imo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8Dq9vqjn8Q


I noticed the second video talked about multiculturalism. I wanted to share a recent article I found on a blog about how there really is no such thing as multiculturalism in the west. The blog itself is neoreactionary, but imo it makes a strong point about how the west, under the guise of being a melting pot, superimposes their dominant, secular, progressive morality onto all other cultures, while reducing those said cultures to simple expressions of dress, food, holidays, and dietary strictures. I see a similar pattern in the way that gender theorists try and trivialize maleness and femaleness into dress codes and pronouns.

_https://jacobitemag.com/2017/06/28/there-is-no-multiculturalism/

Multiculturalism is a word of recent invention created to describe a political order in which a set of laws provides for equal citizenship and equal legal rights for all people who live within that nation regardless of cultural affiliation or ethno-racial identity. It’s a popular conceptual punching bag for people of all political persuasions, but its existence is ephemeral. There are many people who will criticize multiculturalism, but there are few obvious defenders of an explicitly ‘multicultural’ order.

The reason for this is that no one with power in Western countries effectively believes and governs as if all cultures should be treated as equal.

There is a supreme secular national culture that effectively limits cultural expression in each national unit. These national-secular cultures try to make themselves fit into a larger international order represented by the United Nations and other international NGOs that puts limits on what is permitted to be said and believed.

The secular-national cultural mouthpieces prefer – unlike explicitly atheistic nations like the Soviet Union – to portray themselves as neutral arbiters that favor no particular race nor any particular religious sect.

It’s common for modern speech-writers to refer to Islam as the ‘religion of peace,’ even though its history has been defined by imperial expansion. Mohammad spent most of his adult life as a prophet, raider, and military conqueror. The greatest figures in Islamic history are mostly conquerors. The notion of any religion as a ‘religion of peace’ is sort of ridiculous on the face of it, because all surviving major religions have aspects that concern both the right conduct of war and the right conduct of peace.

‘Tolerance’ of multiple religions under a single government is often described in contemporary times as a Christian virtue, but as recently as 91 years before the writing of the Declaration of Independence, France expelled its entire Protestant population due to religious differences.

But the trend among Christians since the modern period has been towards ecumenicalism and a retreat of religion from the throne of power. In general, Westerners expect this to be the case everywhere — and it was until relatively recent times. The photos comparing Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation — educated women in knee-high skirts — and under Taliban rule — women in burkas — illustrates the maturation of the post-colonial world. What looked like an emerging secular world-civilization has fragmented into something that the old post-war multicultural order has struggled to both perceive and acknowledge.

**

In practice, modern multiculturalism has been more concerned with neutering ‘problematic’ cultures than it has been about creating a political order in which multiple unique and sovereign cultures live under the same government sharing the same land.

Multiculturalism is never really intended to mean that different cultures with substantially different moral strictures can be treated equally under the law and permitted to rule their own enclaves independently. That has proven time and again to be too much for America, at least.

Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, was killed by a mob of angry non-Mormons in response to the destruction of an anti-Mormon newspaper headquarters. The US government eventually ended the practice of Mormon polygamy by force in the 1858 Mormon War.

Similarly today, the US doesn’t tolerate official polygamy by Muslims and other sects that permit or encourage plural marriage. If it does effectively tolerate furtive polygamy within some Muslim communities, it does it without admitting to doing it to the public. So, while you can probably get away with a plural marriage behind closed doors, the IRS won’t allow you to file returns together as a polygamous unit.

Longstanding, multigenerational practices that encourage female circumcision, child marriage, or arranged marriage are also either banned or discouraged – even though these are often sacred cultural rituals with longstanding legal precedent in the cultures that uphold those norms.

In fact, the much-maligned colonialists once did much to suppress such practices in the countries that they occupied.

The Civil War was the largest cultural conflict in American history by body count. Few people today would argue that the Antebellum Southern culture should have been preserved to survive side-by-side with the rest of the country under the same federal government, but that is the logic suggested by multicultural advocates.

The people in good standing with modern Western states say that they believe a multicultural and diverse society are good things, but how they behave in their lives and govern the institutions that they control is at odds with the principles that they give lip service to.

***

Under the new world order of diversity, professing a religion ought to have no more meaning than deciding whether to wear a pair of shoes from Adidas, Nike, or Payless.

When multiculturalists say that they believe that every minority race and religious group should be encouraged to flourish independently under the same government, they generally don’t mean that a Muslim man should have the right to marry his nieces and to buy and sell slaves as permitted in the Quran. He doesn’t mean that the Muslim mayor of an American town should be allowed to try and execute confirmed homosexuals under a separate Sharia court, as expected by his religion.

What they tend to mean is that he can be a sort of Muslim who eats pork and drinks beer – a Muslim-in-name-only who does not actually obey the dictates of his religion. In the same way as a Jew who observes the Sabbath is awkward outside of certain closed Orthodox and Hasidic communities, a good Muslim is not a good multicultural citizen.

A good Jew is a Woody Allen type Jew — the big-hat Jew with the forelocks and the eight kids pushing a stroller through Prospect Park is a bad Jew with regressive ideas about anal sex. While the bad Jew may escape a lot of the negative attitudes towards his beliefs that the redneck Baptist with his pickup truck, his guns, and his biblical literalism might earn him, he does not exactly enjoy the pigfat-greased ramp to influence, authority, and wealth that his secularized cousins do.

A good Protestant isn’t rude to his Catholic co-worker about the devil Pope and his machinations. He does not hand out Chick tracts or smash idols.

And so on. You can profess to any belief as long as you downplay any of the beliefs that could potentially harsh the vibes of your fellow citizen-units under the secular order. By doing so, you melt down the cultures contained within the secular container-culture into a meaningless pastiche of Irish bars, gefilte fish jokes, and Korean tacos.

You can believe anything so long as it’s the religious equivalent of beige.

Similarly, if you as a Catholic sent your daughter to a secular private school and she spoke up in a sixth grade health class saying that virginity until marriage is the ideal, abortion is murder, and that sodomy is a grave sin, she would probably be suspended and you would get your name as her parent in the local newspapers. Under contemporary mores, you would be a bad parent for telling your daughter that virginity is a virtue. Even sending her to a private school, most of your bourgeois peers would tell you that you are a bad person.

So, why is it that expressing the religious views which happen to be common throughout the world as it is today and throughout history – certainly more common than they are in the West — considered to be violations of the multicultural rule book?

Why, if we are supposed to welcome Indian immigrants into the United States by the million are we not also supposed to celebrate the common Indian practice of arranged marriage? Arranged marriage is less culturally foreign to Americans than the contemporary celebration of homosexuality and transgenderism. Arranged marriage and semi-arranged marriage were common until the most recently expired century in every country in the West.

****

{snip}

Multiculturalism can also take on the aspects of highly consequential ‘reverse colonialism’ cloaked inside the rhetoric of anti-western anti-colonialism. American universities and corporations do what they can to skim the best and brightest citizens from foreign nations to be educated in American institutions and to work in American enterprises. This denies human capital from foreign countries that desperately need the talent while also creating more competition for native Western skilled workers. (I'm sure this suits the US state dept. just fine).

During the cold war, we called this kind of human capital poaching a ‘brain drain’ deliberately engineered to undermine rival nations. Today, we portray the same policy multiplied to a gargantuan scale as something benign and positive towards the foreign countries that we undermine by doing so.

The most ardent advocates of multiculturalism are the administrators and faculty who lead American universities. These institutions benefit from hundreds of thousands of foreign-born students who come to study every year. Many of them pay full tuition, but others get tuition, room, and board paid for by the American taxpayer either through the states or the federal government.

These universities are also hotbeds that grow the multicultural story. You can be a gay transgender furry Muslim student with a Methodist xirlfriend, so long as you keep your religious expression within the carefully defined rules of expression.

But ultimately the university administrators don’t really care about what they teach students so long as they can keep warm bodies coming through the system. They don’t really care about the consequences of what beliefs they inculcate into graduates because they get paid even if they teach nothing of value and create a lot of social chaos in the process. It doesn’t matter to them because they get paid no matter what happens. The more inclusive they can be – the more people they can import into their system to churn out regardless of academic standards – the more money that they make and the more political importance they gain in a one-heartbeat-one-vote political system that asks nothing and expects less from the electorate.

This article actually made me think of Canada vs the United States. Both profess to be multicultural nations, but by the definition of the article Canada comes closer to having a society with separate cultures and privileges. I'm referring to the French Canadians in Quebec, as well as many First Nations sprinkled throughout (treaties with which were obviously dishonored, but the era for that seems to be ending). I wonder if this asymmetric cultural federalism (written into the foundations of Canada as early as 1774) has in part been responsible for Canada having a more relatively peaceful history compared to other countries in the Americas?

 

[Joe]

I noticed the second video talked about multiculturalism. I wanted to share a recent article I found on a blog about how there really is no such thing as multiculturalism in the west. The blog itself is neoreactionary, but imo it makes a strong point about how the west, under the guise of being a melting pot, superimposes their dominant, secular, progressive morality onto all other cultures, while reducing those said cultures to simple expressions of dress, food, holidays, and dietary strictures.

What is the alternative in America? For all sorts of cultures to be given equal status? What is 'culture' in this respect? Are we talking about federalizing the USA into cultural enclaves where people of a distinct culture would live together and separate from the others? I'd say most people come to America for the money and quality of life and McDonalds. If that's their main motivation, then I'm not sure many immigrants (of whatever generation) would be prepared to kick up a fuss over a lack of real multiculturalism if it came at the expense of the standard of living they enjoy (or don't) in the USA.

 

[Gaby]

Here's another one from more recently that is also very useful. There are many more on YT that are worth watching.

https://youtu.be/9ESlS2jrhXY

Fascinating. I found it particularly interesting that in Germany, both black and white children from American soldiers married with German women had the same IQ because there was no "African subculture".

 

[whitecoast]

I'd say most people come to America for the money and quality of life and McDonalds. If that's their main motivation, then I'm not sure many immigrants (of whatever generation) would be prepared to kick up a fuss over a lack of real multiculturalism if it came at the expense of the standard of living they enjoy (or don't) in the USA.

I suspect that's the article's point. ;) As for the US, I think most of the grief about cultural differences there is between different regions of the US, not necessarily groups of immigrants in particular areas (although Trump did scapegoat them to a certain effect in the last election).

 

[Timótheos]

Here's another one from more recently that is also very useful. There are many more on YT that are worth watching.

https://youtu.be/9ESlS2jrhXY

Fascinating. I found it particularly interesting that in Germany, both black and white children from American soldiers married with German women had the same IQ because there was no "African subculture".

Here's another interesting video on multiculturalism, this one from from Paypal founder's Peter Thiel recorded in 1996...

https://youtu.be/E6cxRYgqfHY

 

[Eboard10]

Here's another interesting video on multiculturalism, this one from from Paypal founder's Peter Thiel recorded in 1996...

Thanks for sharing - both videos above are definitely worth watching as they tackle the issue around the multiculturalism movement from different angles.

I also didn't know Peter Thiel was that involved in the topic. His talk is very informative as he explains how the word has been misused to describe a movement that is all but open minded and embracing of multiple cultures and ideas, and that it has not only failed to eradicate the problem it was set to solve but also made the situation worse.

 

[Voyageur]

Received a blog-article link that was only glanced at (short version of the title below) and was almost completely passed over until coming back and having a look (was not sure what to expect). However, it is the story of a girl named Lindsay who while young identified with a male. Her story is rather interesting; how it started out and where it ultimately went to and why. Lindsey prefaces her story and adds a brief comment that tells another story of this Ryland (both two are somewhat similar children):

I am Ryland – the story of a male-identifying little girl who didn’t transition

http://lindsayleighbentley.com/2014/06/30/i-am-ryland-the-story-of-a-male-identifying-little-girl-who-didnt-transition/

But I keep hearing the story of Ryland, a child who was born a female, whose parents have transitioned her to male at 5 years old. You can see the full story HERE, but in short, because their daughter identified herself as a boy, and liked “boy” things as opposed to “girl” things, they cut off her hair, bought her “boy” clothes, and have begun telling her, and others, that she is a boy.

And the story of Ryland does not really go much further other than to describe the differences of the parents (Lindsey's & Ryland's) who had complete opposite approaches.

Without following up on the story of Ryland any further, not sure where that ended up, and without quoting the whole of Lindsey's story here (which has photos), I'm just adding a couple of select quotes below:

They just let me be me. They let me be a girl who wore jeans more often than skirts. They let me play with slingshots rather than princess wands. They didn’t conclude that I was gay, or transgender. They didn’t put me in a box that would shape my future, at the expense of my own free will.

The parents sound so reasonable.

Fast forward to age 14/15 (late bloomer here) and I finally started going through puberty. I had never really thought of the opposite sex in a sexual manner before. My attraction was immediately, and is to this day, towards men. At the risk of going all Shania on you, I “feel” like a woman. Had my parents decided, at age 5, that I was a boy, I can not imagine the confusion that I would have experienced during my teen years.

In this current time, when considering social educators and parents that seem to be looking for opposed gender like-signs in children, in their own children; some hysterically so, ultimately this seems to project only future mass confusing among children. These signs are probably similarly consistent with that of Lindsey as a child (with variations). However, what seems more prevalent today is that most children will be exposed to this either directly or non directly at home or in school. When you also factor in new training of medical doctors and nurses who may play an active role in assigning subjective gender orientation directives and notifying whatever systems have been put in place to accelerate the child to a new gender orientation, along with all the new specialized clinics that perform hormone therapy and even surgery on non-mature young, where is this going to go? What of the school classroom in another decade where this could all be very actively promoted and fostered by educators and school councilors?

This threads namesake denotes deeper actions on behalf of the Canadian government that are helping to enshrine laws that help make, indirectly, the progression of this whole thing move forward; they argue this is just about respect and neutrality and then threaten people who speak out. To me anyway, this is starting to have an almost surreal and unrecognizable foundation, not that some people might grow and really benefit in making a new gender choice for themselves based on mature knowledge of self if that is the case, and this is how it has been. This is different, and something seems very off, it seems more like some kind of remote 4d programming has been downloaded and specified social structures are being ripped apart and willingly and totally accepted and changed against nature.

I've yet to sort out some things in this new line of force. Also, there may be a tendency to cite parents like Ryland's for helping this along, and they are, yet something came first in all this to provide parents with the basis to specifically mark gender identification. Then came the support mechanisms for parents to help tell them this is right-parenting and others are wrong. This also appears to have been 'outside' the home as a social engineering project and is now slowly being injected into the fabric of home and family and society as a whole. I'm not sure of the genesis of all this, of where exactly it came from - the left leaning sociologists?

What seems scary is what will happen to parents like Lindsey's in the future, parents who offer their children balance and free will to grow up and make choices at a reasonable cognitive age? The way things seem to be structured at higher government, educational and medical levels in this regard, may well see parents like Lindsey's with no where to go with their children other than with what the establishment demands of them - it could turn out that children will be even remove from the home if they do not agree? Is it overreaching to think that if this is not stopped with reasonableness, that this whole youth-gender promotion is going to get much worse, at least it looks like that is a potential?

 

[Joe]

7 mins of a Peterson talk that I found very interesting in how it intersects with our own philosophy. Remarkable really.

https://youtu.be/SmmPKLDX130

 

[Alana]

Received a blog-article link that was only glanced at (short version of the title below) and was almost completely passed over until coming back and having a look (was not sure what to expect). However, it is the story of a girl named Lindsay who while young identified with a male. Her story is rather interesting; how it started out and where it ultimately went to and why. Lindsey prefaces her story and adds a brief comment that tells another story of this Ryland (both two are somewhat similar children):

I am Ryland – the story of a male-identifying little girl who didn’t transition

http://lindsayleighbentley.com/2014/06/30/i-am-ryland-the-story-of-a-male-identifying-little-girl-who-didnt-transition/

But I keep hearing the story of Ryland, a child who was born a female, whose parents have transitioned her to male at 5 years old. You can see the full story HERE, but in short, because their daughter identified herself as a boy, and liked “boy” things as opposed to “girl” things, they cut off her hair, bought her “boy” clothes, and have begun telling her, and others, that she is a boy.

And the story of Ryland does not really go much further other than to describe the differences of the parents (Lindsey's & Ryland's) who had complete opposite approaches.

Without following up on the story of Ryland any further, not sure where that ended up, and without quoting the whole of Lindsey's story here (which has photos), I'm just adding a couple of select quotes below:

They just let me be me. They let me be a girl who wore jeans more often than skirts. They let me play with slingshots rather than princess wands. They didn’t conclude that I was gay, or transgender. They didn’t put me in a box that would shape my future, at the expense of my own free will.

The parents sound so reasonable.

Fast forward to age 14/15 (late bloomer here) and I finally started going through puberty. I had never really thought of the opposite sex in a sexual manner before. My attraction was immediately, and is to this day, towards men. At the risk of going all Shania on you, I “feel” like a woman. Had my parents decided, at age 5, that I was a boy, I can not imagine the confusion that I would have experienced during my teen years.

Yes, this article was on sott too, not long ago: Natural expression of gender: The story of a male-identifying little girl who didn't transition and I thought it hit the nail on the head.

In this current time, when considering social educators and parents that seem to be looking for opposed gender like-signs in children, in their own children; some hysterically so, ultimately this seems to project only future mass confusing among children. These signs are probably similarly consistent with that of Lindsey as a child (with variations). However, what seems more prevalent today is that most children will be exposed to this either directly or non directly at home or in school. When you also factor in new training of medical doctors and nurses who may play an active role in assigning subjective gender orientation directives and notifying whatever systems have been put in place to accelerate the child to a new gender orientation, along with all the new specialized clinics that perform hormone therapy and even surgery on non-mature young, where is this going to go? What of the school classroom in another decade where this could all be very actively promoted and fostered by educators and school councilors?

This threads namesake denotes deeper actions on behalf of the Canadian government that are helping to enshrine laws that help make, indirectly, the progression of this whole thing move forward; they argue this is just about respect and neutrality and then threaten people who speak out. To me anyway, this is starting to have an almost surreal and unrecognizable foundation, not that some people might grow and really benefit in making a new gender choice for themselves based on mature knowledge of self if that is the case, and this is how it has been. This is different, and something seems very off, it seems more like some kind of remote 4d programming has been downloaded and specified social structures are being ripped apart and willingly and totally accepted and changed against nature.

I've yet to sort out some things in this new line of force. Also, there may be a tendency to cite parents like Ryland's for helping this along, and they are, yet something came first in all this to provide parents with the basis to specifically mark gender identification. Then came the support mechanisms for parents to help tell them this is right-parenting and others are wrong. This also appears to have been 'outside' the home as a social engineering project and is now slowly being injected into the fabric of home and family and society as a whole. I'm not sure of the genesis of all this, of where exactly it came from - the left leaning sociologists?

What seems scary is what will happen to parents like Lindsey's in the future, parents who offer their children balance and free will to grow up and make choices at a reasonable cognitive age? The way things seem to be structured at higher government, educational and medical levels in this regard, may well see parents like Lindsey's with no where to go with their children other than with what the establishment demands of them - it could turn out that children will be even remove from the home if they do not agree? Is it overreaching to think that if this is not stopped with reasonableness, that this whole youth-gender promotion is going to get much worse, at least it looks like that is a potential?

My personal hope is that it will eventually die out, because there's so far one can go against nature before things go really kaflooy. What if all these sex-changing children start having serious issues down the road, if a number of them realize what they've done to themselves and how their families in effect were complicit, what if they start commiting suicide in numbers that are hard to dismiss (as is the case today?) So yes, there will be so much confusion, suffering, and we will see more insane laws being passed as an excuse to clamp down the "normies", and the medical establishment will be getting a bit richer.

What I liked the most about Lindsey's blog entry was how it shows so clearly that a healthy expression of gender accounts for a span of behaviors without the need to label them as either or. It is really the progressives who are limiting the options on how to be and how to behave, despite all their feminism rants, and they can't even see the discrepancy.

In a world run by progressives: a woman who likes to drive trucks can imagine that she feels like a man (because, really? How would she know what it truly feels to be like a man? Or vice-versa?) This feeling however makes her feel unhappy for some reason, or so she imagines, and instead of going to see a therapist, she goes to the medical establishment where she pays money for hormone “treatment” and maybe down the road she will pay an even more great amount of money for a sex-change surgery. But the fact remains that she is a woman who imagines that she feels like a man.There’s so much subjectivity in all these assumptions, and there’s no way to tell if she will be happy in the end, so it is like waking up one morning feeling really crappy for not living in a castle by the sea (or on clouds as it were) and thinking that buying such castle will make one happy.

In a world run by common sense, women will drive trucks and still be women, others will be attracted to other women as sexual partners but still be women, others will like to dress up as men and date men but still be women, etc. Same with men, who will be free to express their selves as who they are. The options are endless, and there's no reason for all the drama and the suffering.

As Lindsey writes:

I still love some stereotypical "male" things. Football remains my absolute favorite sport to watch. I love fixing things around the house, and honestly, am often better at it than my husband. I prefer to go barefoot and struggle to remember to wash my hair and pluck my eyebrows. I enjoy doing mechanical things, and am not afraid to stand my own against jerky sub-contractors. I hate clothes shopping. I like having muscles. I love to exercise, and enjoy feeling really strong. I am thankful that I feel confident to manage our home on my own while my husband travels. I prefer Bourbon over a Cosmopolitan.

But I also love being a woman. I love to feel beautiful, especially when I have an event with my husband. I love putting on an apron and creating elaborate meals for friends and family. I love nursing my babies. I looooove going to the spa.

My husband is amazing at design and is the decorator/designer for our home. He does most of the clothes shopping for both of us, and has no interest in learning how to change the oil in our car. He is creative and artistic. But he also loves to go hunting and fishing and has to handle any dead little animal that we find on our property because I can't handle that stuff.

These things don't make us gay or transgender, they make us unique human beings.

Because my parents never forced me to, I never considered if some of the things that I enjoyed were "boy" things or "girl" things, I was just me. When we begin to tell boys that they must act "this" way, and that girls should act "that" way, and that if they don't, they are transgender; we put children in these tiny boxes that create confusion, frustration, and sometimes, lifelong psychological and emotional damage.

 

[whitecoast]

This threads namesake denotes deeper actions on behalf of the Canadian government that are helping to enshrine laws that help make, indirectly, the progression of this whole thing move forward; they argue this is just about respect and neutrality and then threaten people who speak out. To me anyway, this is starting to have an almost surreal and unrecognizable foundation, not that some people might grow and really benefit in making a new gender choice for themselves based on mature knowledge of self if that is the case, and this is how it has been. This is different, and something seems very off, it seems more like some kind of remote 4d programming has been downloaded and specified social structures are being ripped apart and willingly and totally accepted and changed against nature.

I've yet to sort out some things in this new line of force. Also, there may be a tendency to cite parents like Ryland's for helping this along, and they are, yet something came first in all this to provide parents with the basis to specifically mark gender identification. Then came the support mechanisms for parents to help tell them this is right-parenting and others are wrong. This also appears to have been 'outside' the home as a social engineering project and is now slowly being injected into the fabric of home and family and society as a whole. I'm not sure of the genesis of all this, of where exactly it came from - the left leaning sociologists?

What seems scary is what will happen to parents like Lindsey's in the future, parents who offer their children balance and free will to grow up and make choices at a reasonable cognitive age? The way things seem to be structured at higher government, educational and medical levels in this regard, may well see parents like Lindsey's with no where to go with their children other than with what the establishment demands of them - it could turn out that children will be even remove from the home if they do not agree? Is it overreaching to think that if this is not stopped with reasonableness, that this whole youth-gender promotion is going to get much worse, at least it looks like that is a potential?

There was this from last month as well:
New Ontario Law Enables Gov’t to Seize Children from Parents Opposing Gender Transition
_http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/06/new-ontario-law-enables-govt-to-seize-children-from-parents-opposing-gender-transition/

Bill 89, “Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017,” was approved on June 1 by a vote of 63 to 23.

The Minister of Children and Youth Services, Michael Coteau, who introduced the bill, said earlier this year that a parent’s failure to recognize and support a child’s gender self-identification is a form of child abuse, and a child in these circumstances should be removed from the situation and placed into protection.

“I would consider that a form of abuse, when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying no, you need to do this differently,” Coteau said. “If it’s abuse, and if it’s within the definition, a child can be removed from that environment and placed into protection where the abuse stops.”

{snip}

The former law stated that the parent of a child in care has the right “to direct the child’s education and religious upbringing.” The new law has removed that consideration, saying parents can direct the child’s education and upbringing “in accordance with the child’s or young person’s creed, community identity and cultural identity.”

Some Christians have reacted strongly to the new bill, calling it a violation of parents’ primordial rights to educate their children and a direct assault on Christian beliefs.

“With the passage of Bill 89, we’ve entered an era of totalitarian power by the state, such as never witnessed before in Canada’s history,” said Jack Fonseca, senior political strategist for Campaign Life Coalition. “Make no mistake, Bill 89 is a grave threat to Christians and all people of faith who have children, or who hope to grow their family through adoption.”

Canadian child protection services are no stranger to invasive micromanagement of child-rearing according to a predetermined worldview.

In April of this year, a Christian couple filed a lawsuit against Hamilton Children’s Aid Society after two foster children were removed from their care because they refused tell the children that the Easter bunny is real.

“We have a no-lying policy,” said Derek Baars, one of the foster parents, as the motivation for disobeying a child support worker who ordered him and his wife to tell the two girls in their care, aged 3 and 4, that the Easter bunny is real.

“We explained to the agency that we are not prepared to tell the children a lie. If the children asked, we would not lie to them, but we wouldn’t bring it up ourselves,” Baars said.

It's incredibly sad. A kid who experiences and role-plays roles gendered for the other sex are suddenly considered potential mental health cases, that can only be resolved by early intervention in the child's education to "affirm" their non-binary status and plant suggestions about transitioning later on. None of this is the child's doing. Children are suggestible and easily led by authority figures they look up to. Now (in Ontario at least) the government can threaten to steal children from parents unless they indulge in the institution's mad ideas about what your child's gender identity or expression is. The way the law is worded (compared to the last laws governing adoption and fostering) you can't even take your children out of public school to tell them things like the easter bunny isn't real, or that they'll extremely likely to outgrow their gender-bending during puberty.

It could turn into something sharply reminiscent of the 60's Scoop, which was a time period in Canada (60's to 80's) when Child Protection Services would systemically take children from Aboriginal communities so they could be fostered and raised in White, middle class families. As much as 20,000 children were taken, making up over a third of children in foster care. It just looks like they may switch the culture being targeted from Aboriginals to those believing in more traditional notions of gender and devil-knows-what-else. That's just a worse case scenario though. Like Alana said, I hope this dies out peacefully while people still have the voices to speak up about it. People will clue in eventually when they realize that 20 years down the line the mental health of "trans" children has never been worse, while acceptance of trans identity and gender expression has never been higher.

 

[Voyageur]

Yes, this article was on sott too, not long ago: Natural expression of gender: The story of a male-identifying little girl who didn't transition and I thought it hit the nail on the head.

Wow, thanks Alana. Teaches me to search through SoTT more consistently knowing that someone probably caught this. And it is all the more "relevant today" as the article SoTT article says.

In this current time, when considering social educators and parents that seem to be looking for opposed gender like-signs in children, in their own children; some hysterically so, ultimately this seems to project only future mass confusing among children. These signs are probably similarly consistent with that of Lindsey as a child (with variations). However, what seems more prevalent today is that most children will be exposed to this either directly or non directly at home or in school. When you also factor in new training of medical doctors and nurses who may play an active role in assigning subjective gender orientation directives and notifying whatever systems have been put in place to accelerate the child to a new gender orientation, along with all the new specialized clinics that perform hormone therapy and even surgery on non-mature young, where is this going to go? What of the school classroom in another decade where this could all be very actively promoted and fostered by educators and school councilors?

This threads namesake denotes deeper actions on behalf of the Canadian government that are helping to enshrine laws that help make, indirectly, the progression of this whole thing move forward; they argue this is just about respect and neutrality and then threaten people who speak out. To me anyway, this is starting to have an almost surreal and unrecognizable foundation, not that some people might grow and really benefit in making a new gender choice for themselves based on mature knowledge of self if that is the case, and this is how it has been. This is different, and something seems very off, it seems more like some kind of remote 4d programming has been downloaded and specified social structures are being ripped apart and willingly and totally accepted and changed against nature.

I've yet to sort out some things in this new line of force. Also, there may be a tendency to cite parents like Ryland's for helping this along, and they are, yet something came first in all this to provide parents with the basis to specifically mark gender identification. Then came the support mechanisms for parents to help tell them this is right-parenting and others are wrong. This also appears to have been 'outside' the home as a social engineering project and is now slowly being injected into the fabric of home and family and society as a whole. I'm not sure of the genesis of all this, of where exactly it came from - the left leaning sociologists?

What seems scary is what will happen to parents like Lindsey's in the future, parents who offer their children balance and free will to grow up and make choices at a reasonable cognitive age? The way things seem to be structured at higher government, educational and medical levels in this regard, may well see parents like Lindsey's with no where to go with their children other than with what the establishment demands of them - it could turn out that children will be even remove from the home if they do not agree? Is it overreaching to think that if this is not stopped with reasonableness, that this whole youth-gender promotion is going to get much worse, at least it looks like that is a potential?

My personal hope is that it will eventually die out, because there's so far one can go against nature before things go really kaflooy. What if all these sex-changing children start having serious issues down the road, if a number of them realize what they've done to themselves and how their families in effect were complicit, what if they start commiting suicide in numbers that are hard to dismiss (as is the case today?) So yes, there will be so much confusion, suffering, and we will see more insane laws being passed as an excuse to clamp down the "normies", and the medical establishment will be getting a bit richer.

What I liked the most about Lindsey's blog entry was how it shows so clearly that a healthy expression of gender accounts for a span of behaviors without the need to label them as either or. It is really the progressives who are limiting the options on how to be and how to behave, despite all their feminism rants, and they can't even see the discrepancy.

In a world run by progressives: a woman who likes to drive trucks can imagine that she feels like a man (because, really? How would she know what it truly feels to be like a man? Or vice-versa?) This feeling however makes her feel unhappy for some reason, or so she imagines, and instead of going to see a therapist, she goes to the medical establishment where she pays money for hormone “treatment” and maybe down the road she will pay an even more great amount of money for a sex-change surgery. But the fact remains that she is a woman who imagines that she feels like a man.There’s so much subjectivity in all these assumptions, and there’s no way to tell if she will be happy in the end, so it is like waking up one morning feeling really crappy for not living in a castle by the sea (or on clouds as it were) and thinking that buying such castle will make one happy.

In a world run by common sense, women will drive trucks and still be women, others will be attracted to other women as sexual partners but still be women, others will like to dress up as men and date men but still be women, etc. Same with men, who will be free to express their selves as who they are. The options are endless, and there's no reason for all the drama and the suffering.

As Lindsey writes:

I still love some stereotypical "male" things. Football remains my absolute favorite sport to watch. I love fixing things around the house, and honestly, am often better at it than my husband. I prefer to go barefoot and struggle to remember to wash my hair and pluck my eyebrows. I enjoy doing mechanical things, and am not afraid to stand my own against jerky sub-contractors. I hate clothes shopping. I like having muscles. I love to exercise, and enjoy feeling really strong. I am thankful that I feel confident to manage our home on my own while my husband travels. I prefer Bourbon over a Cosmopolitan.

But I also love being a woman. I love to feel beautiful, especially when I have an event with my husband. I love putting on an apron and creating elaborate meals for friends and family. I love nursing my babies. I looooove going to the spa.

My husband is amazing at design and is the decorator/designer for our home. He does most of the clothes shopping for both of us, and has no interest in learning how to change the oil in our car. He is creative and artistic. But he also loves to go hunting and fishing and has to handle any dead little animal that we find on our property because I can't handle that stuff.

These things don't make us gay or transgender, they make us unique human beings.

Because my parents never forced me to, I never considered if some of the things that I enjoyed were "boy" things or "girl" things, I was just me. When we begin to tell boys that they must act "this" way, and that girls should act "that" way, and that if they don't, they are transgender; we put children in these tiny boxes that create confusion, frustration, and sometimes, lifelong psychological and emotional damage.

I was very taken with the home-life simplicity of the situation with Lindsey, how her parents were and then having the courage to write about it - parents all over could learn better from them than the from the words of authoritarians who have helped create these upside down conditions.

As you say, perhaps it will just revert back to what is natural. Maybe having reach a plateau, this trajectory will be relegated to what Hicks described of post modernism, which is that it might go back into the ghetto from which it emerged. However, laws have been laid down now.

When watching the discussions between Peterson and the Canadian senate, the arguments against what Peterson was saying were bizarre - this from elite representatives. This is what is hard to grasp that when the obvious is vehemently argued against in favor of the ridiculousness people see - and poof, a new law. Seeing a ponerological process in action helps one to understand, but still, these are common sense things.

Thanks for your thoughts.

There was this from last month as well:
New Ontario Law Enables Gov’t to Seize Children from Parents Opposing Gender Transition
_http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/06/new-ontario-law-enables-govt-to-seize-children-from-parents-opposing-gender-transition/

There you go, a progression. Chilling.

It's incredibly sad. A kid who experiences and role-plays roles gendered for the other sex are suddenly considered potential mental health cases, that can only be resolved by early intervention in the child's education to "affirm" their non-binary status and plant suggestions about transitioning later on. None of this is the child's doing. Children are suggestible and easily led by authority figures they look up to. Now (in Ontario at least) the government can threaten to steal children from parents unless they indulge in the institution's mad ideas about what your child's gender identity or expression is. The way the law is worded (compared to the last laws governing adoption and fostering) you can't even take your children out of public school to tell them things like the easter bunny isn't real, or that they'll extremely likely to outgrow their gender-bending during puberty.

It could turn into something sharply reminiscent of the 60's Scoop, which was a time period in Canada (60's to 80's) when Child Protection Services would systemically take children from Aboriginal communities so they could be fostered and raised in White, middle class families. As much as 20,000 children were taken, making up over a third of children in foster care. It just looks like they may switch the culture being targeted from Aboriginals to those believing in more traditional notions of gender and devil-knows-what-else. That's just a worse case scenario though. Like Alana said, I hope this dies out peacefully while people still have the voices to speak up about it. People will clue in eventually when they realize that 20 years down the line the mental health of "trans" children has never been worse, while acceptance of trans identity and gender expression has never been higher.

Hope it dies too. Was also thinking that we tend to focus on one side and forget that there are many in the new generations; left, middle or right, who don't buy into this nonsense. It will take some time to see where this goes.

The CPS (Canada/States) still has some nasty tactics they pull on families, aboriginal or not. These interventions that CPS types do need to be handles with extreme care and rigor. There are some families, again, aboriginal or not, that are just plainly dysfunctional and dangerous to their children, so there is a need to look at that (as is there a need to look at why they are this way - poverty et al.). What you describe through laws (that obviously should never have been written) has scary to contemplate potential to do the same damage to children as dysfunctional parents do - laws that substitute one for the other (state sponsored child mental abuse - bent to gender identity in this case). :(