Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

[Jones]

Billboard Chris, the Canadian father who is standing against the trans agenda to protect kids is drawing attention to Australia. He tweeted about an Australian trans man referring to the person as 'she'.




The post went viral and the Australian e-Safety Commissioner threatened Musk with an $800,000 fine if he didn't take the tweet down. Musk has blocked the tweet from Australian accounts, but is apparently looking at suing the Commissioner. Billboard Chris is apparently working with the Australian Free Speech Union to appeal the block on the tweet.





Soon after, Billboard Chris shared another post addressing the subject of beastiality in Australia that made it to headline news here.

Bestiality references allegedly made during presentation at Renmark High School​

• In short: Year 9 girls at Renmark High School say they were given a presentation on "respectful relationships" that included references to bestiality.
• The ABC understands a teacher was not present for the presentation, which was delivered by a "third-party" facilitated by Headspace Berri.
• What's next? The education department and the school say the matter is being investigated.

Warning for readers: This article contains graphic language.

The South Australian Department for Education is investigating a presentation delivered to year 9 girls in a regional high school that allegedly referenced bestiality as being accepted by the LGBTQIA+ community.

Female students said teachers at Renmark High School told them to leave their lessons and attend a presentation in a separate classroom.

Students who attended the presentation on March 22 say two staff from the Headspace centre in the neighbouring town of Berri introduced a "third-party" presenter who facilitated an hour-long presentation focused on relationships.

Parents said they were not notified about the presentation, nor was it consented to.

Students said they were left unsupervised for the duration of the presentation.

Student Courtney White, 14, said she felt confused and blindsided by the presentation.

"We had a teacher that told us to grab a chair and sit in front of the board, and then the Headspace people came in and then [the teacher] left, so then we're sitting in front of a board alone with no teachers, just the Headspace people," she said.

"The first slide of the PowerPoint on the board was 'You can see queerly now' and 'No point hiding.'"

Nicki Gaylard has unenrolled three of her children from Renmark High School, including Courtney White.(ABC News: Amelia Walters)

Girls felt 'really uncomfortable'​

Fourteen-year-old Emelia Wundenberg said the presenter was graphic when referencing their own sexual preferences and spoke in sexually explicit terms about growing up and being confused about whether they idolised people of the same gender or wanted to be intimate with them.

Students say they were then given an explanation of the initialism LGBTQIA+, with each word and its meaning displayed on the screen.

"There was a slide for what the 'plus' means, and they just started randomly saying words that no-one knew, like bestiality," Emelia said.

"It was on the board when they were showing what the 'plus' meant."


The students said bestiality was then explained in detail and the presenter seemed to imply it was something practised by people who identified as LGBTQIA+.

"They said [the queer community] just accepts all of it, even though … isn't it illegal?" Emelia said.

As the talk went on multiple girls, including Courtney, began to feel uncomfortable and asked to leave the classroom to "go to the bathroom".

"We're all just sitting there like, 'What the hell? What are we doing here? Why are we learning about animals having sex with humans?'" she said.

"It was really disgusting, it was really uncomfortable."

Emelia said many of those who asked to leave the classroom did not return.

When the ABC sought comment from the presenter a response was sent on the person's behalf asking that reporters refrained from reaching out or naming them in its coverage.

Renmark High School says an internal review is being conducted.(ABC Riverland: Sophie Landau)

'Normal procedure' not followed​

Letters seen by the ABC that were sent to parents on behalf of Renmark High School principal Mat Evans stated that the presentation was meant to discuss "respectful relationships".

The letter acknowledged that the school's "normal procedure for notifying parents ahead of specific presentations was not followed".

Mr Evans said the third-party presenter had "been suspended from department schools while the department undertakes an investigation".

"We are undertaking an internal review to ensure that processes around such notifications and procedures with regard to third parties attending at our school are always met," he said.

The ABC contacted the Department for Education, which provided a similar statement and said the presentation was being investigated.

SA education department chief executive Martin Westwell said the presentation was "unacceptable" and "shouldn't have happened".

Speaking with ABC Radio Adelaide on Thursday, Professor Westwell said conversations about sexual health, societal norms, stereotypes and sexuality were normal parts of the Australian curriculum, but the presentation at Renmark High School was not.

"The core idea that students should understand sexuality and other sexualities is, I think, really important — but the way [the presenter] went about it was unacceptable," he said.

"The school has clearly made some mistakes.
"There should have been a teacher in the room when that occurred, but there wasn't and the principal has apologised for that.

"They hadn't reviewed the content.

"There was a few things that went wrong and it ended up with this inappropriate language and a few things being discussed in that session that were just not appropriate."

Support being provided to students​

Headspace's national head of clinical leadership Nicola Palfrey said the organisation was aware of concerns raised by members of the Renmark community.

"We take all feedback very seriously and are reviewing how we can support and guide Headspace centres … to ensure presentations they facilitate or deliver are aligned with evidence and best practice and are safe and appropriate for young people," she said.

FocusOne Health Board chair Ian Gartley said the "focus at Headspace Berri, operated under licence by FocusOne Health, is on the mental health and wellbeing of young people".

"We are aware of concerns raised by local members of the Renmark community following a presentation delivered by a lived experience speaker that Headspace Berri facilitated at Renmark High School," he said.

"Our priority right now is ensuring that any young people and their families who may be experiencing distress receive the support they need."
All parties involved in the alleged incident declined to provide the presentation to the ABC.

Following the presentation, a follow-up letter seen by the ABC was sent to parents offering counselling services from the education department, which had arranged a social worker to attend the school to help support affected students.

Kristy Fyfe says the presentation her daughter Emelia Wundenberg attended did a "huge disservice" to the queer community.(ABC News: Timu King)

Parents express shock and outrage​

Parents of students who attended the presentation said it was a poor representation of the queer community and had raised many concerns about the school's protocols for third-party presentations.

"Who vetted this material? Who made sure it was safe for 14- and 15-year-old girls? Some of them are still 13," Emelia's mother Kristy Fyfe said.

"It has done a huge disservice to the [queer] community."

Following the presentation, Courtney's mother Nicki Gaylard removed her three children from Renmark High School.

"My kids are in limbo," she said.

"They're not in an education department at this point.

"I'm not putting them anywhere until I know this won't happen again.

"Under no circumstances should a child in that school ever feel trapped and unsafe without someone with their certificate, meaning a teacher."

The ABC has spoken to five other parents whose children attended the presentation.

They substantiated the two girls' claims.

Mel Brush (left) and Eleonora Bertsa-Fuchs are passionate about queer-inclusive education.(Supplied: Let's Talk About X)

LGBTQIA+ educators condemn 'slur'​

Sexuality educators and LGBTQIA+ inclusion advocates Mel Brush and Eleonora Bertsa-Fuchs conduct consent and queer inclusion training for schools, parents and workplaces via their social enterprise Let's Talk About X.

Both are secondary teachers and Mx Bertsa-Fuchs said queer education was important but should be delivered in a safe and appropriate setting.

"The teachers are the people that these young people have a relationship with, that they are familiar with, that they're comfortable with," Mx Bertsa-Fuchs said.

"When you're in a vulnerable situation, like a respectful relationships workshop or seminar, there should be someone in the room that you are familiar with."

Mx Brush said the alleged use of the word bestiality in the presentation was damaging to the queer community.

"It's pretty shocking to think about that term being thrown around like that, especially given how loaded it is, and for a historical context of the way that it's been used as a slur and to discriminate against LGBT+ people," Mx Brush said.

So, school protocols were not followed as teachers left the year 9 class alone with the presenters. Some girls were so upset by the content of the talk that they asked to go to the toilet and didn't return to the class.

The response from the LGBTQIA+ education team 'Lets Talk About X' was that the teachers should have remained present because the material should be introduced in a safe environment, have not indicated whether the team that led this session was associated with them and have come under fire for their response as they are referring to the harm to the LGBTQIA+ community that this session has caused, but have not really addressed any harm to the year 9 students! Also they haven't indicated whether they address the subject of bestiality in their talks, they just say that the use of the word bestiality was
harmful to the LGBTQ+ community.

Billboard Chris has gained more attention for his activist work that aims to protect the children against the trans agenda here in Australia.

Hopefully this will all reach more parents than the activist work against the safe schools program put together by Gary Dowsett did.

 

[iamthatis]

Billboard Chris, the Canadian father who is standing against the trans agenda to protect kids is drawing attention to Australia. He tweeted about an Australian trans man referring to the person as 'she'.

View attachment 94020


The post went viral and the Australian e-Safety Commissioner threatened Musk with an $800,000 fine if he didn't take the tweet down. Musk has blocked the tweet from Australian accounts, but is apparently looking at suing the Commissioner. Billboard Chris is apparently working with the Australian Free Speech Union to appeal the block on the tweet.


View attachment 94021


Soon after, Billboard Chris shared another post addressing the subject of beastiality in Australia that made it to headline news here.



So, school protocols were not followed as teachers left the year 9 class alone with the presenters. Some girls were so upset by the content of the talk that they asked to go to the toilet and didn't return to the class.

The response from the LGBTQIA+ education team 'Lets Talk About X' was that the teachers should have remained present because the material should be introduced in a safe environment, have not indicated whether the team that led this session was associated with them and have come under fire for their response as they are referring to the harm to the LGBTQIA+ community that this session has caused, but have not really addressed any harm to the year 9 students! Also they haven't indicated whether they address the subject of bestiality in their talks, they just say that the use of the word bestiality was
harmful to the LGBTQ+ community.

Billboard Chris has gained more attention for his activist work that aims to protect the children against the trans agenda here in Australia.

Hopefully this will all reach more parents than the activist work against the safe schools program put together by Gary Dowsett did.

Those 'Headspace' freaks should do jail time.

 

[iamthatis]

Have JBP or James Lindsay or any of the other outspoken critics of wokism ever spoken about the cancel culture of the ADL? Or the narcissist 'specialness' that runs through Jewish culture - God's chosen people, etc.? Or also the demand that other races and religions should bow down to them due to their enduring status as the biggest victims of the world? The more I look at it, seems to me like wokism is basically based on the Jewish model but dispersed along different identity categories.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Have JBP or James Lindsay or any of the other outspoken critics of wokism ever spoken about the cancel culture of the ADL? Or the narcissist 'specialness' that runs through Jewish culture - God's chosen people, etc.? Or also the demand that other races and religions should bow down to them due to their enduring status as the biggest victims of the world? The more I look at it, seems to me like wokism is basically based on the Jewish model but dispersed along different identity categories.

Nope! But Truth Perspective did: The Truth Perspective: Identity Politics on Steroids: How Zionism Outdoes Them All

 

[iamthatis]

In Canada, CSIS has announced that 'believing' in two genders and opposing child butchery makes one eligible for the violent extremist list.

CSIS suggests those who oppose gender ideology are a ‘violent threat’ in Canada

CSIS suggested that Canadians having issues with the gender ideology are driven by “beliefs stemming from misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, religious interpretations, conspiracy theories, or a generalized fear of sociocultural change.”

thepostmillennial.com

In its annual report for 2023 the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) says that Canadians opposed to gender ideology are a possible “violent threat.”

The annual report states, "CSIS assesses that the violent threat posed by the anti-gender movement is almost certain to continue over the coming year and that violent actors may be inspired by the University of Waterloo attack to carry out their own extreme violence against the 2SLGBTQIA+ community or against other targets they view as representing the gender ideology agenda."

No word on gender ideologue mass murderers, tho. And strangely, I couldn't find much of anything about the Waterloo attack - or the accused, international student Geovanny Villalba Aleman -aside from news reports that immediately followed the incident, despite it being over a year ago.

While saying that the “anti-gender movement” poses a “significant threat to Canada’s national security, the report then admitted, “While the movement may collectively hold extreme views, CSIS assesses that only a small portion of adherents are willing to engage in serious violence.”

The spy agency could only cite the example of former University of Waterloo student Geovanny Villalba-Aleman, who stabbed two students and a professor in a Gender Studies class in June 2023 as evidence the supposed threat to Canadian security.

The agency categorizes opposition to radical “gender-affirming care” such as sex changes for minors as potentially embracing what it calls “Religiously Motivated Violent Extremism” or RMVE.

CSIS tabled its report to the House of Commons on May 7 and in addition to the usual security threat suspects, the spy agency suggests Canada is fertile ground for “exposure to entities espousing anti-gender extremist rhetoric” who “could inspire and encourage serious violence against the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, or against those who are viewed as supporters of pro-gender ideology policies and events.”

CSIS put antisemitism alongside anti-LGBTQ sentiment

Thoughtcrimes go together I guess.

and claimed, “Anti 2SLGBTQIA+ and antisemitic rhetoric is spreading widely through social media and online forums among domestic RMVE adherents, increasing the risk of extremist violence against these communities, and placing youth vulnerable to RMVE propaganda at a higher risk of becoming radicalized on online platforms. Charismatic RMVE leaders in Canada continue to use international events to amplify their propaganda to radicalize and recruit vulnerable individuals while encouraging both domestic acts of violence and international travel to conflict zones. Consequently, CSIS assesses that RMVE actors will continue to pose a domestic threat to Canada in 2024.”

And if they're not an actual domestic threat, one may be manufactured to make it so.

The report then suggests that RMVE actors can join forces with Individually Motivated Violent Extremists (IMVE). “The anti-gender movement falls within the gender/identity driven violence category of IMVE and is defined as the ideological opposition to the socio-cultural shifts that are represented by the integration and acceptance of gender theory, including acceptance of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community.”

Two new acronyms, CSIS is getting serious!

CSIS then suggested that Canadians having issues with gender ideology are driven by “beliefs stemming from misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, religious interpretations, conspiracy theories, or a generalized fear of sociocultural change.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has frequently inserted himself and his government into the provincial education sphere and demanded that gender ideology be protected in the school system and that parental rights are superseded by gender fluidity in the classroom. On Thursday, he again insisted that New Brunswick should change its policy of parents having the right to know if their children want to change their pronouns.

As part of its “2SLGBTQI+ Action Plan," the Trudeau government has awarded $1.1 million on a “purge fund” that targets “hateful” parents opposing gender ideology and LGBTQ indoctrination.

Hmm, a purge fund. It's mandate is to censor parents, and is based on a politics of revenge masquerading as 'learning from an historical injustice':

News and updates about how the money is being spent can be found on the federal government’s “LGBT Purge Fund” page. The purge refers to gay individuals who were fired from the Canadian military, RCMP and public service as a result of their sexual orientation, which, at the time, was red-flagged because of the potential for such individuals to be compromised or blackmailed. Trudeau apologized for the firings on Nov. 28, 2017 in a tear-laden speech to the House of Commons.

It was an expensive apology:

The apology comes with $145 million, which includes $110 million for compensation for LGBT civil servants whose careers were sidelined or ended because of their sexuality, and $15 million for historical reconciliation, education and memorialization efforts.

The contract was given to Cossette Communications on July 26, 2023 “to develop, manage a 2SLGBTQ+ Anti-Stigma awareness and marketing campaign aimed at targeted segments of people.”

Trudeau’s latest federal budget released in April 2024 includes $150 million to promote 2SLGBTQI+ teaching in Canada and around the world.

What a nice liberal gesture, even more money for the corruption of youth. So basically this lays the groundwork for parents to be targeted specifically as religiously-motivated extremists. The ponerization in Canada is increasing.

 

[heinrich]

In Canada, CSIS has announced that 'believing' in two genders and opposing child butchery makes one eligible for the violent extremist list.

CSIS suggests those who oppose gender ideology are a ‘violent threat’ in Canada

CSIS suggested that Canadians having issues with the gender ideology are driven by “beliefs stemming from misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, religious interpretations, conspiracy theories, or a generalized fear of sociocultural change.”

thepostmillennial.com

No word on gender ideologue mass murderers, tho. And strangely, I couldn't find much of anything about the Waterloo attack - or the accused, international student Geovanny Villalba Aleman -aside from news reports that immediately followed the incident, despite it being over a year ago.



Thoughtcrimes go together I guess.



And if they're not an actual domestic threat, one may be manufactured to make it so.



Two new acronyms, CSIS is getting serious!



Hmm, a purge fund. It's mandate is to censor parents, and is based on a politics of revenge masquerading as 'learning from an historical injustice':



It was an expensive apology:





What a nice liberal gesture, even more money for the corruption of youth. So basically this lays the groundwork for parents to be targeted specifically as religiously-motivated extremists. The ponerization in Canada is increasing.

my god !!! may i recall my previous statement that the canadian gov is utterly stupid? from where does this planetary gender craze come???

 

[BHelmet]

I’ve had this thought that all the absurd turning of reality on its head combined with governments pushing viewpoints not held by the vast majority could be laying the groundwork for a post-reset new society.

IOW, humanity gets reset and the residual coding of these memories of these ideologies becomes the new normal. Humanity wakes up after the next reset in the ghost cities of China with a new narrative. Things are being built today, not for today, but for tomorrow. They look foolish and ridiculous today. Tomorrow? Just a thought.

 

[Liliea]

I’ve had this thought that all the absurd turning of reality on its head combined with governments pushing viewpoints not held by the vast majority could be laying the groundwork for a post-reset new society.

Yes, I have also thought that the idea is to keep mankind obedient and docile but above all spiritually subdued especially this part of the population with this new belief, the way to make it effective could be a kind of Technocracy-New age-lgtb..z, because they openly seek the acceptance of hybridisation with all its iniquities - i.e. some already eat insects, transgender mutilations, parties to get the chip on your shoulder, the media's attack on morality - and a ‘free’ religion providing material security, is the best way to lose true freedom.

 

[iamthatis]

Yeah I can see the PTB angling too follow the trajectory that Gmirkin spoke about with the invention of Judaism in 270 BC.

Plato said that to found a nation, you should do lots of investigation in the law codes of other nations. And yet, he said that when you create a new nation, you get to convince everybody, the citizens, that these nations are ancient, that they are divinely given, that they’ve been unchanged since the dawn of time when they were given to the founding generation. You’ve gotta to sell them on that. Or else, you know, your nation will not be successful. So he advocated extensive, ongoing research in international law, but covertly, by the ruling class. You don’t let the general populace know that that’s what you’re doing. These people would go out to other nations and investigate their law codes, and bring back new information to use. When they came back, they had to not only keep it a secret, they had to tell everybody that their nation’s laws were the best on pain of death.

He had a very good program for not only generating constitutions and laws but also selling it as given by a divine law-giver like Zeus or Apollo, who gave the laws to Crete and Sparta, other nations that were successful in having long-lived constitutions. A lot of the Greek nation-states, they believed that their god have given them their laws. As Plato said, there is this superstition that develops where you never want to give up those divine laws that are part of your heritage. You’re very loyal to them, you’ve grown up with them. That psychology – it was very successful among the ancient Greeks, and it’s been successful in the 2000 years ever since. I have to take my hat off to Plato, he was a genius, but a rather dark genius and we can really blame all of our belief systems on him.

In order to truly make a truly new culture out of this gender nonsense, the PTB basically need to install a new history, and one that's divinely given. I think they're partially doing that with historical revisionism operating under the term 'queering archaeology', and linking it with contemporary trends in the queering and trans-ing of the West. But also not of the West - other cultures are brought in to justify what's happening, not just other times.

Boy-Wives and Female-Husbands: Studies of African Homos…

Historians, anthropologists, and many contemporary Afri…

www.goodreads.com

We even have a 'queering animals' thing going on.

MSN

'See, being queer is all natural, even the animals are kinky and strange. Many cultures had boy-wives, so everyone calm down and don't be insensitive, let's all go down to the library and have a nice time twerking at the drag queen story hour.' It's psychological warfare.

Then there's Trudeau's purge fund, which seeks to address historical crimes by censorship. Reading Cleckley's work, which explicitly details instances of dishonorable discharge from the military due to sexual perversion, I would like to know how many of the Canadian personnel expelled from the armed forces were ejected not due to homosexuality, but pathological sexual perversion, which just happened to express as homosexuality due to the single-gender environment.

Anyways, the catch is that the PTB have to indoctrinate the entire population with this BS, telling them that they are the sacred recipients of some kinda holy truth. Kinda like 'Baphoment's chosen people' or something.

We're not at the point where this is the sacred history, and thank God enough people recognize the degeneracy is pretty far from the true expression of liberty, and more like enslavement to baser drives, social programming, and the celebration of serious adult pathology and child abuse.

They're going after the kids via LGBTQ+ education because they want to ingrain it now, so that when those youth grow older, it isn't questioned, it's taken as the truth. Maybe the PTB are betting on a large die-off of reasonable adults, tho, due to earth changes in addition to their active depopulation efforts. The more they can infect with the ideology now, the better they have of seeing these evil seeds bear fruit after the coming changes. Or so they think.

 

[Voyageur]

Virtue vs. Freedom​

Peterson aside (although of old he would factor), the following is a Debate on the resolution: "Be it resolved that, as Wokeism destroys the West, the first responsibility of government is to foster a virtuous society, rather than protect individual liberty."

Here is the debate set up:

Augustine College and First Freedoms Foundation present a lively debate between David Haskell (Wilfrid Laurier University) and Bruce Pardy (Queen's Law). David will argue in favour and Bruce will argue against the following resolution: "Be it resolved that, as Wokeism destroys the West, the first responsibility of government is to foster a virtuous society, rather than protect individual liberty.

"The Rand Debate is inspired by Canadian Supreme Court Justice Ivan Rand "Logic must yield to common sense as well as to justice."

The debate was civil, calm and thought provoking (one needs to ride it a little under the traditional pendulum surface, as certainly people here can well do).

Will give the Cs the opening words using the words virtue and choice:

A: Keep in mind that the 4th density STO perspective has a tendency to exclude certain factors by virtue of choice of realm frequency. This means that the lesson profile of 4th density STO is to enhance the energy by association in networks that do not include ongoing contact with STS, and so their perspective is on the positive STO experience.

Both Haskell and Pardy would agree that the woke is highly STS and would wish to not have contact with them, yet it is more complicated in 3D.
The Cs use the words virtue and choice, and both words come into the debate, however there are a great deal of nuances, biases, and seeking the right way. Haskell argues from a Judo Christian conservatism position, backed up (his words) by thousands of years history. Pardy argues a classical liberal position, yet the liberal meaning is argued to be skewed - do people now know what it is or does a dark shadow form around its original intent?

Some curious moments in how each argued their positions, as Pardy seemed to lean into the question of individual autonomy to choose (and there is a lot here behind his words), and Haskell, in some ways, adopts the glories of societal changes because the government acts (or doesn't) through signals that we may push back upon and then accept later. The government can (with strength of moral conviction) pave the way. Pardy rejects this - Haskell asks him what is your evidence for classical liberalism, Pardy says there never has been one that functioned, while Haskell argues conservatism invigorated democracy for thousands of years and Pardy asks, that is reaching and there is not evidence for it.

Haskell offers words that make sense in moral ways, although the ideas can work against choice, and as Pardy at one point said (paraphrasing), the liberal woke want to tell you how to choose, and the conservative wants to tell you what you must choose (from different spectrums). Both in a way lean towards forcing choice.

Haskell lays out societal statistics, wherein Christian morality stabilize society (offering many examples and it can be argued that they do, and Pardy is aware), and yet this might make one think of Paul's Childminder reference. It seems that Pardy scratches around this minder question, because at one point he asks Haskell (paraphrasing again), that you are of the position that everything can be accomplished in society with Christian values, but what do you say to someone who does not believe in Christianity? A fair question, which Haskell admits and somewhat skirts around, although he tried to answer.

Neither openly look to actions of pathocracy, and in their own ways they may be aware of these pitfalls, yet institutions then comes into the discussion - example:

Haskell would argue that the CBC (government funded broadcaster in Canada) is corrupt (indeed), and it only needs fixing. While Pardy said that there is no fixing it, it is a government propaganda organ, more or less, and it should cease to be funded, period (other examples followed).

Note: Haskell is a professor and looks to Sociology of Religion, while Pardy is professor of law.

Going back to the original 'resolution' being debated. Haskell would have you look at the words (bolded) "Be it resolved that, as Wokeism destroys the West, the first responsibility of government is to foster a virtuous society, rather than protect individual liberty."

Virtue (even if it is ordered by government).

Pardy argues "Be it resolved that, as Wokeism destroys the West, the first responsibility of government is to foster a virtuous society, rather than protect individual liberty."

Government opposing the individual.

Have likely missed a lot here, so if one is interested in debating alone, it is a good one to check out. If one is interested in, the be it resolved question, again it is interesting to check out.

 

[Voyageur]

For those with children, who have had children or care about children, people are often left wondering what is going on with the idea of Human Rights - of Parental Rights.

The following looks to Canada, and for those watching province by province, it has become a horrible situation that parents face in this country as more and more parents are loosing control of protecting their children, and loosing in courts. It is also happening in other countries as their laws and Human Rights tribunals utilize similar language. The U.S., though, has different language, constitutional language (currently being eroded), so U.S. folks would have to look at this differently, although it is happening slowly in the U.S. state by state.

Here is how Pardy unravels the legal language being used against parents in a 'Zero Sum' game of human/parental rights. This concerns legal premises – and whether in BC or Ontario law, it is the same. It is the hierarchy of where parents sit in terms of rights over and for their children. On the surface, who would argue against parental rights not being natural, it is inherent, and yet according to the law and the newly interpreted human rights, it simply is not in the eyes of the state. Why? Pardy will argue that Human Rights has become weaponized (this was explicit during covid), and has been so step by step over time by the very oppressive state that human rights came into existence to protect against. Human Parental Rights has been flipped on its head to present ‘you’ as the oppressor over your children, and your children need protecting against you (granted, there are many situations with parents who's children are at risk from them and there are systems for this).

Pardy, essentially is laying out how Education, Health and Human Rights are the pillars that stand between you and your children. Pillars that are defended at all costs. It has also been erected to bolster equality of ‘outcome’ for one group over another as an inherent right, thus not equal. You will see this come out in rulings.

If one is not troubled or understanding by what is being said here, perhaps listen to this a few times as he guilds you through words of law and how they can and are interpreted – and this has been no accident that a reinterpretation has came into being.

Is Pardy wrong? The courts suggest he is not.

Will leave off by stating what he said at the end, as this does not call for a moral argument (that is implicit and it need not be stated), because a moral argument, as right as it is, goes up against a system that will argue it down with legal force. Thus, parents need to think strategically and be unified against the system. Things will not change unless this happens (a mass network of people), and even at that, sadly it will be slow.

“Bruce Pardy’s presentation to this year’s summit looks at the original premise of public schools and how that premise (parents don’t know what they’re doing) has shaped the education landscape and the reality parents face: parents do not have the rights they assume they do. The managerial authority governing healthcare, schools and human rights operates on a pyramid of oppression that supposes children are the oppressed and parents are the oppressors. Decisions that parents might think they control for their children are instead determined by external actors (health practitioners, for example) in accordance with how the Human Rights Code is interpreted. Originally conceived to liberate people from the oppression of the state, human rights can now be applied by one citizen against another, explains Bruce. Over time, the Human Rights Code has become weaponized to protect “so-called vulnerable groups” to flip the power dynamic. That means, if you are at the top of the oppression pyramid, it is not possible for you to be discriminated against. It also means that not everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the law and that some people are entitled to unequal treatment. Understanding these shifts is central to parents in their fight to change the status quo. [This presentation was recorded on Saturday, January 27].”

Note: had to feel bad for the organizer of this Natural Parental Rights Virtual Summit, it is not what they wanted to hear.

 

[hlat]

Women and men are different? "These findings strongly suggest that what’s going on in a woman’s brain at rest is significantly different from what’s going on in a man’s brain at rest." "Men and women are turning out to be different, more different than we may have imagined." Did we need millions of dollars in tech, Phds, and experts to tell us, or was it free all along using our eyes and seeing?

New Research Finds Huge Differences Between Male and Female Brains

Patterns of activity with no overlap.

www.psychologytoday.com

New Research Finds Huge Differences Between Male and Female Brains
A new study shows huge differences, with no overlap between women and men.
Posted May 24, 2024
Leonard Sax M.D., Ph.D.

KEY POINTS
A new study from Stanford shows remarkable differences between female and male brains.
The researchers found no overlap between male and female, and rejected the idea of a "continuum."
Male-pattern brain connectivity predicted male cognitive function but not female cognitive function.
Female-pattern brain connectivity predicted female cognitive function but not male cognitive function.

Are male brains really that different from female brains? Does it matter? Why should anybody care?

More than 100 years ago, a German neurologist named Paul Julius Möbius published a book titled Über den physiologischen Schwachsinn des Weibes, “Regarding the physiological weakmindedness of women.” Möbius noted that women's brains are smaller than the brains of men, even after adjusting for differences in height. He concluded that women are “physiologically weak-minded.” In making that claim, Möbius was continuing a tradition in Western thought that we can trace back to Aristotle, namely: women and men are different. That means men are better.

The misogynistic arguments of men from Aristotle to Möbius have made many modern researchers leery of claims regarding female/male differences in the brain. Researchers have long since established that there are, in fact, no differences in average intelligence between men and women. But investigators have consistently found that women are more likely than men to experience anxiety and depression. Conversely, men are more likely than women to have autism, attention-deficit disorder, and schizophrenia. Are these male/female differences merely social constructs? Or might these robust differences in psychopathology reflect, at least in part, some underlying difference in neuroanatomy or neural connectivity?

A recent review of MRI studies of female and male brains concluded that “MRI-based studies exploring differences between male and female brains revealed mostly inconsistent and inconclusive findings.” Others have argued that while there might be differences, on average, between male and female brains, the differences are on a continuum, with lots of overlap.

But researchers at Stanford recently used artificial-intelligence methods to examine brain activity in roughly 1,500 young adults 20 to 35 years of age. Neuroscientists have known for many years that every human brain is characterized by a “fingerprint” of brain activity at rest, unique to that individual. The Stanford neuroscientists used big-data artificial intelligence techniques to determine the fingerprint of every one of those 1,500 young adults and then compared females with males. Did females differ from males? Was there overlap? The results were astonishing.

As you can see, there wasn’t a continuum: the female fingerprints of brain activity were quite different from the male fingerprints of resting brain activity, with no overlap. These findings strongly suggest that what’s going on in a woman’s brain at rest is significantly different from what’s going on in a man’s brain at rest.

Just as remarkably, the Stanford team mapped fMRI patterns of connectivity onto cognitive functions such as intelligence. They found particular patterns of connectivity within male brains that accurately predicted cognitive functions such as intelligence. However, that male model had no predictive power for cognitive functions in women.

Conversely, they found particular patterns of connectivity within female brains that accurately predicted cognitive functions such as intelligence among women. However, that female model had no predictive power for cognitive functions in men.

These findings strongly suggest that the determinants of cognitive functions in male brains are profoundly different from the determinants of cognitive functions in female brains.

I have to admit that I was really surprised by these results. I have been writing about these topics for more than 20 years. In the first edition of my book Why Gender Matters, published by Doubleday in 2005, I devoted a chapter to kids who are psychologically “gender-atypical.” I suggested that these kids are somewhere in between male and female. But the Stanford study provides little support for that claim. I am hopeful that the researchers will do follow-up studies specifically looking at individuals who are gender-nonconforming, gender-atypical, and who have gender dysphoria, to see whether and how those characteristics influence these findings.

The researchers are well aware of the implications of their findings. They know all about the previous studies suggesting small effect sizes, lots of overlap, and a continuum of male/female differences. They conclude that the failure of previous work to demonstrate these huge effects is due to the "weaker algorithms" employed in earlier research. They conclude: "Our results provide the most compelling and generalizable evidence to date, refuting this continuum hypothesis and firmly demonstrating sex differences in the functional organization of the human brain."

There has been very little coverage of this report in the mainstream media. You will find no mention of this study in The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or National Public Radio. I suspect that’s because most mainstream media are cautious of anything having to do with brain-based differences between women and men. Many of us are understandably wary that any claim of difference will lead to claims regarding ability. If men’s brains are different from women’s brains, doesn’t that imply that men will be better at some things and women will be better at other things? Especially when there is no overlap in the findings?

But “different” doesn’t necessarily imply “better.” As I stressed in the second edition of my book Why Gender Matters, apples and oranges are different. That doesn’t mean apples are better than oranges. Men and women are turning out to be different, more different than we may have imagined. That doesn’t mean that women are better than men, or vice versa. But it does suggest that if we ignore the differences, we may disadvantage both women and men.

 

[BHelmet]

Fantastic post, Voyageur. When my daughter was in high school, she participated in Speech and Debate. To support her, I became involved in judging speech and debate for three years. It was quite an eye-opener. It was very educational, stimulating and it was a window into the educational system itself. The way the Debate Coach/Judges voted tended to herd the kids to use certain repetitive, limited strategies. Plenty of times the vote was 2-1 for one team, and guess who the "1" tended to be? Yes, the old Geezer trained several generations before.

Virtue vs. Freedom​

Peterson aside (although of old he would factor), the following is a Debate on the resolution: "Be it resolved that, as Wokeism destroys the West, the first responsibility of government is to foster a virtuous society, rather than protect individual liberty."

Immediately, there is a big problem with the framing of the resolution. (and I found this often to be the case.) It could easily be argued that "responsibility of government is to foster a virtuous society" is one and the same with Wokism! IOW, the choice of options presented is skewed in a number of ways. There are many other responsibilities of government which are side-stepped. It is almost a dichotomous Hegelian type of framing which leads to a predetermined pathway. So, I would argue there is a big tin of red herring baked into the cake from the outset. But I digress. What is implied is that Gov't. management of society takes precedence over individual liberty. Another circular issue is that the Resolution presupposes something that may not be true: wokism is destroying the west. It could be more true that Governments lacking virtue are destroying the west and Wokism is just a byproduct of that.

Here is the debate set up:
The debate was civil, calm and thought provoking (one needs to ride it a little under the traditional pendulum surface, as certainly people here can well do).

I totally get it.

Will give the Cs the opening words using the words virtue and choice:
Both Haskell and Pardy would agree that the woke is highly STS...

Government itself is also highly STS, to say the least. That is another thing I encountered: the agreement upon definitions which were often themselves debatable. One side would yield the high ground by agreeing to a set of definitions that were detrimental to their cause. My experience was that definitions were very often glossed over and it was assumed everybody knew what they were talking about. (which is almost never the case)

The Woke are convinced they are virtuous by definition. For the unWoke, that is hardly true. Is it more a question of "What really is Virtue" (which is, of course, a giant complex can of worms that the presenters, I would think, on both sides would tend to avoid, and yet, it is the crux of the matter, IMO). Is it even possible for government to regulate and promulgate virtue in society? Has there every been a virtuous government, and, if so, was it not a function of an already existing virtuous society? (Chicken/Egg)

The Cs use the words virtue and choice, and both words come into the debate, however there are a great deal of nuances, biases, and seeking the right way. Haskell argues from a Judeo Christian conservatism position, backed up (his words) by thousands of years history. Pardy argues a classical liberal position, yet the liberal meaning is argued to be skewed - do people now know what it is or does a dark shadow form around its original intent?

Some curious moments in how each argued their positions, as Pardy seemed to lean into the question of individual autonomy to choose (and there is a lot here behind his words), and Haskell, in some ways, adopts the glories of societal changes because the government acts (or doesn't) through signals that we may push back upon and then accept later. The government can (with strength of moral conviction) pave the way. Pardy rejects this - Haskell asks him what is your evidence for classical liberalism, Pardy says there never has been one that functioned, while Haskell argues conservatism invigorated democracy for thousands of years and Pardy asks, that is reaching and there is not evidence for it.

Good points.

Haskell offers words that make sense in moral ways, although the ideas can work against choice, and as Pardy at one point said (paraphrasing), the liberal woke want to tell you how to choose, and the conservative wants to tell you what you must choose (from different spectrums). Both in a way lean towards forcing choice.

I would say the conservative is more about what a person should not be allowed to choose - or choose at the risk of consequences.

Haskell lays out societal statistics, wherein Christian morality stabilize society (offering many examples and it can be argued that they do, and Pardy is aware), and yet this might make one think of Paul's Childminder reference. It seems that Pardy scratches around this minder question, because at one point he asks Haskell (paraphrasing again), that you are of the position that everything can be accomplished in society with Christian values, but what do you say to someone who does not believe in Christianity? A fair question, which Haskell admits and somewhat skirts around, although he tried to answer.

This is another thing I noticed while judging: Several generations have been trained to argue their points with empirical evidence even when advocating for grand ideals. (big mistake in my book, but they have been taught the grand ideals are subjective, relative and therefore not even worth looking at!) And so they make the mistake of tying their thesis to a particular ideological example (eg, Judeo/Christianity in this case) (because they are too lazy or unversed in arguing the great principles). The default argument was very often utility (which they have been trained and indoctrinated to rely upon), which to me, isn't a compelling argument at all. ("the greatest/greater good") The reliance on "utility" tends to lead to an empirical default which is never very satisfying or decisive.

Neither openly look to actions of pathocracy, and in their own ways they may be aware of these pitfalls, yet institutions then comes into the discussion - example: Haskell would argue that the CBC (government funded broadcaster in Canada) is corrupt (indeed), and it only needs fixing. While Pardy said that there is no fixing it, it is a government propaganda organ, more or less, and it should cease to be funded, period (other examples followed).

Note: Haskell is a professor and looks to Sociology of Religion, while Pardy is professor of law.

Going back to the original 'resolution' being debated. Haskell would have you look at the words (bolded) "Be it resolved that, as Wokeism destroys the West, the first responsibility of government is to foster a virtuous society, rather than protect individual liberty."

Virtue (even if it is ordered by government).

Wow. A government department of Virtue. Talk about an oxymoron!

Pardy argues "Be it resolved that, as Wokeism destroys the West, the first responsibility of government is to foster a virtuous society, rather than protect individual liberty."

Government opposing the individual.

Have likely missed a lot here, so if one is interested in debating alone, it is a good one to check out. If one is interested in, the be it resolved question, again it is interesting to check out.

To sum up: to me, the question is itself framed as a justification for totalitarianism, or expansive government management of society, (before the debate even begins) which is exactly the desired outcome.

Bottom Line: Liberty is dangerous and people can't be trusted with it! LOL, Or, you could take the Left's own shield and beat them over the head with it: Government is inherently lacking in virtue and has no business pretending like it does.

Thanks, again, great food for thought.