It’s “ethically inappropriate” for government and medical organizations to describe breastfeeding as “natural” because the term enforces rigid notions about gender roles, claims a new study in Pediatrics.
I just… I can’t even… just what the fuck have I just read here?
“Coupling nature with motherhood… can inadvertently support biologically deterministic arguments about the roles of men and women in the family (for example, that women should be the primary caretaker,” the study says.
No you fucking moron, people say that “breastfeeding is natural”, because it’s one of the most natural things in the world. All female mammals (humans included) have mammary glands that produce milk which they use to feed their young. Male mammals (again, humans included) don’t have this ability. If it’s natural for every other mammal to do this, then what makes humans the exception? Where did this arrogant view come from, that somehow nature doesn’t apply to humans?
The study notes that in recent years, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization, and several state departments of health have all promoted breastfeeding over bottle-feeding, using the term “natural.”
BECAUSE IT IS FUCKING NATURAL!!!!
“Referencing the ‘natural’ in breastfeeding promotion… may inadvertently endorse a set of values about family life and gender roles, which would be ethically inappropriate,” the study says.
Yeah, could you imagine? It might offend certain people to make statements like this.
Unless such public-service announcements “make transparent the ‘values and beliefs that underlie them,’” they should quit describing breastfeeding as “natural.”
“You should do this thing because WE say so. If you don’t do as we say, we will call you names like ‘sexist’ or ‘transphobic’, or whatever other word we think of, until we get our way. Then when you prove your weakness and cowardice by giving in to our initial demands, we’ll start making even more outrageous demands, and force you to do as we say again.”
But the study’s authors, Jessica Martucci and Anne Barnhill, clearly have in mind an alternative set of “values and beliefs,” about which which they are not transparent.
According to this article, they actually first published this lunacy over a year ago. When called out on it, they just screeched about “misogyny”, claiming people were just attacking them for being outspoken women, rather than the fact that their ideas were being ridiculed for their obvious stupidity.
It’s unclear whether they’re worried about how traditional female gender roles may limit women’s progress in the workforce, or whether this is part of the discussion about whether conventional views about motherhood exclude transgender people.
Who cares what their motivation was? Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that breastfeeding IS natural. There’s no justification for what they are claiming.
Or perhaps this is just another example of how the progressive obsession with gender and sexuality has permeated all fields of academic study.
Yeah that’s probably the most likely explanation.
Regardless, Martucci and Barnhill mask their agenda by also making the unconvincing secondary argument that describing breastfeeding as “natural” fuels the anti-vaccine movement.
When public-service announcements praise breastfeeding as “natural,” Martucci and Barnhill argue, the implication is that manufactured or mass-produced products are questionable or dangerous—so these promotions may unintentionally encourage parents to reject scientific progress elsewhere.
*Claims breastfeeding shouldn’t be described as “natural”*
“If doing what is ‘natural’ is ‘best’ in the case of breastfeeding, how can we expect mothers to ignore that powerful and deeply persuasive worldview when making choices about vaccination?” they write.
Because they are two different things and have absolutely no connection, you idiot. Doing one, doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not they’ll do the other.
There’s certainly an assertive worldview woven throughout this paper, though we find it neither powerful nor deeply persuasive.
Social justice has no end in sight. There’ll never be a point were its advocates will feel that enough is enough. They’ll always find some new “problem” to have a hissy fit over. You can just tell at this point that we’ve long gotten past the point of actual real problems, when they’re starting to complain about stupid shit like this.
VIDEO game critics have claimed the family-friendly Super Mario video games series is unsuitable for children because it’s SEXIST.
Mario, a video game series that has been enjoyed by millions of children, girls and boys alike, over the past three decades, the majority of whom have grown up to be perfectly normal, well-adjusted adults, is suddenly unsuitable for children, because some dickhead on the internet says so.
But feminists have rounded upon the game, with one writer suggesting it was time Mario was rescued BY his love interest Princess Peach, rather than going on missions to save her.
That has already happened. The game is called Super Princess Peach, and it came out about ten years ago.
The game sold relatively poorly in comparison to the regular Mario series by the way, which is probably why they haven’t made another. Point is, at least they tried to do something like this, and a full decade before this dickhead started whining on the internet about it.
Chris Suellentrop, a top games reviewers at the New York Times, said the recent iPhone Super Mario Game was “inappropriate for children”.
It’s just incredible how arrogant this comes off. 30 years worth of children have been playing this series without being negatively impacted by it, but apparently it’s inappropriate for children because this guy says so.
“In an era where we can watch Frozen or Moana…this is not okay,” he said on his podcast, Shall We Play, according to Heat Street.
“Different options are not OK. Because the Princesses in Frozen and Moana are strong characters who aren’t in need of being rescued, no Princess can ever be portrayed like that again.”
I guess going by the same logic, we can’t allow children to watch any of the older Disney animated films like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, or Cinderella, because they have outdated portrayals of princesses, which will somehow mess up young girls today, even though they didn’t mess up young girls from previous generations.
“People give Nintendo a pass because they’re family-friendly, you know what? This is not family-friendly.”
How is it not family friendly? What exactly isn’t family friendly about a man going to great lengths to save the woman he loves from danger? Are we just going to deny the basic biological drives of our species, in order to promote ideological nonsense? In harsher time periods, while our species was still evolving, women tended to choose a strong man, who could protect them from danger, and provide for them, as a mate. In the same way, men have a natural, biological drive to protect women because it is through women, that we are able to pass on our own genes.
In our current social environment, this kind of dynamic is less of a necessity because of the way civilisation is set up. In the modern world, in which we aren’t at war with nature and rival tribes for resources, women are quite capable of providing for themselves, and they don’t need a strong man to protect them, because we have law and order to do that instead. However, absolutely nothing about our biology has changed, as civilisation has developed quicker than our biological evolution.
As a result, despite how much our lifestyles may have changed in the last few thousand years, ultimately, we still have the same animal instincts now that our stone age ancestors had when women instinctively sought out strong men to protect and provide for them, and men had a biological drive to want to protect from harm, the women who would potentially bear their offspring. Therefore, I would contend that because our biological instincts haven’t changed, that most males will naturally identify with the male power fantasy of rescuing a princess, and most females will identify with the fantasy of being rescued and protected by a brave hero, rather than being the hero themselves. I’m not saying every single person will conform to these gender stereotypes, and for those who don’t, their preferences are perfectly valid as well, but a lot of people will identify with the gender stereotypes, so having games that cater to these perfectly natural fantasies is hardly “inappropriate for children”.
“How dare they have fictional video game woman bake a cake for the man she loves? This sends such a horrible message to young girls somehow, even the ones who just happen to enjoy baking.”
Most Mario games involve saving Princess Peach, who has inevitably been kidnapped by the plumber’s arch enemy, Bowser.
Ina Fried, a respected technology journalist, said these old-school storylines do not reflect the modern world.
“It’s *current year*, therefore everything has to change. We won’t give any reasons why this is suddenly necessary, other than the fact that we now think the old way is outdated because of the current year.”
In an article for Re/Code, she wrote: “It has been 30 years since Mario first rescued the princess back in 1985. Since that time, more than 50 women have gone into space, more than two dozen have been elected to the U.S. Senate and several hundred have climbed Mount Everest.
Wait, you mean these women managed to accomplish all those incredible things, despite such a “sexist” video game series existing? Wow, that almost makes me think that capable women are capable no matter what, and the existence of a video game series that utilises an “outdated” story, is not going to stop them from achieving. I’d also bet that statistically speaking, with how popular the Mario series is, that at least a few of these highly accomplished women have played at least one Mario game in their lifetime and yet all that “sexism” didn’t harm them in any way.
This all goes back to the point I made in my article about the campaign to convince parents to buy their sons a Barbie doll. I don’t believe for a second that there is actually any real problem here at all, but what is happening, is a bunch of insecure adults are projecting their own insecurities and failures onto children, and are finding a scapegoat to blame for these insecurities and failures, rather than taking responsibility instead.
I mean come on, lets really be honest with ourselves here. How many people (and this question is for both men and women) played Mario games in their youth and started thinking that women were worth less than men because of it? Obviously, I can only cite anecdotal evidence which in the grand scheme of things, means nothing, but I will say that I certainly wasn’t thinking about gender stereotypes when I played these games. I just enjoyed them for what they were, and I’ve known plenty of female gamers who played the series, enjoyed it, and are now perfectly normal, well-adjusted young women, who haven’t been negatively affected in any way from doing so. They didn’t feel insecure as females playing a game in which the male hero has to rescue the princess. They just had fun playing the game and didn’t think any deeper than that.
“More importantly, the next generation of girls and boys are learning gender norms from, among other things, games like Super Mario Run. Personally, I think it is about time for a game where Peach rescues Mario.”
^See the problem here. These idiots don’t even have any understanding of what they’re even complaining about. They just take a quick, superficial glance at things, think they’re suddenly well informed on the topic, and start complaining and demanding changes to things they aren’t really interested in. It’s absolutely ridiculous. Meanwhile, while this uninformed moron is complaining about the Mario series and acting as if it’s the be-all, and end-all of the video game industry, he’s ignoring the existence of the many strong female video game characters that already exist, some of whom have existed almost as long as the “sexist” Princess Peach character.
And all the above are just a small example, specifically limited to strong playable female characters. There are plenty of other strong female characters in games, both playable and those in a supporting role, as well as games which allow the player to create a blank avatar from scratch of either gender.
The point I’m trying to close on, is this. The Mario series has existed for decades and has been popular with generations of children (including girls) the entire time. Women who have grown up in a post-Mario world have still managed to accomplish amazing things, despite its apparent “sexism”. Acting as if Mario’s traditional “hero rescues a princess” storyline, is somehow damaging little girls, without presenting any supporting evidence to back up this claim, is completely idiotic and intellectually dishonest. However, if you still feel that Mario is not suitable for girls because Princess Peach is a bad role model, then that’s your choice, and there are plenty of alternative games out there with strong female characters to play instead. Not every game needs to have a badass female protagonist though. There is plenty of room in the gaming industry for different options, and Mario just fills one of many. You don’t like it, then don’t play it. It’s really that simple.
I’m sure we’re all well aware of the fact that certain career fields are dominated by men and that there is a big push to get more women into them. For a long time it has remained a mystery as to why this is. Finally, I am happy to report, that we now know the reason why there are so few women on average entering STEM fields. There aren’t enough little boys playing with Barbie dolls, and somehow this is causing women to not pursue careers in STEM.
PARENTS are being urged to buy their little boys a Barbie for Christmas this year as part of No Gender December.
Good Education Group chief executive officer Chris Lester is supporting the grassroots campaign, which is encouraging parents to avoid buying their children gender-marketed gifts.
Except that’s not what they’re doing at all. On the contrary, they’re outright encouraging parents to buy gender-marketed gifts, only for children of the opposite gender of that which they are marketed to.
Look, if a little boy chooses to play with Barbie dolls because that’s the toy he wants to play with, I really do not care. Let him play with them if he wants. However, this stupid ideology of trying to force them to play with them whether they have an interest in them or not, is just fucking dumb. Why do insecure adults feel this need to project their own insecurities onto innocent children? Why not just leave the kids alone, and let them play with the toys they want to play with? If they want to play with toys that are specifically marketed towards their gender, then just let them do it, rather than forcing them to play with toys marketed towards the opposite gender.
“Kids should be free to decide which toys interest them, without being informed by gendered marketing that something is ‘for them’ or ‘not for them’,” a statement on the No Gender December website says.
This statement just comes off as incredibly hypocritical when you’re running a campaign to encourage parents to buy specific toys for their children, without taking into consideration if the child is interested or not.
In a blog post, Mr Lester said the movement correlated with the perception that STEM (Science, technology, engineering and maths) fields were dominated by men and avoided by women.
Maybe because at large, they are. There are no legal barriers that prevent women from pursuing careers in these fields. They have the same rights and opportunities available to them to pursue the career of their choice as men do. Many women do pursue careers in STEM, and perform just as well as any of their male colleagues. Others pursue it and don’t do so well. Then there are other women (the majority) who choose to go into other areas which are dominated by their gender, such as nursing, teaching, social work, etc.
The point is, all of these women (economic background aside) have the same freedom to pursue the career they want as men do. If they simply choose a non-STEM related career, then what’s the problem? Why not respect their right to choose? Isn’t it funny, how feminists are always talking about a “woman’s right to choose” but if a women at large are making choices they don’t approve of, it suddenly becomes a problem and “something needs to be done”?
“Just as toy stores typically separate ‘girls’ from ‘boys’ toys, workplaces tend to be sharply divided between ‘pink’ and ‘blue’ jobs,” he wrote.
You know what else are “blue” jobs? Mining, waste management, sewer pipe cleaners, lumberjacking, etc. Why isn’t there a big campaign to “end the gender discrimination” in all of these sexist jobs as well? Why are they only talking about the gender imbalance in the STEM fields, but not in these areas too?
Earlier this month, the Institution for Engineering and Technology warned that gendered gifts could be turning young girls away from careers in technology and engineering.
So let me see if I understand this correctly. The toys that little girls play with is discouraging them from pursuing certain careers when they get older. So the solution to this, is to force little boys to play with these same toys instead, and this will somehow solve the problem? Call me a sexist bigot or whatever the current buzzword is, but isn’t the logical conclusion to this scenario, that making boys play with these toys will only discourage them as well? Surely, if the toys have that much of an impact on a child’s future career choices, then the solution is to encourage little girls to play with toys that are marketed towards boys, so that they’ll develop the same confidence as boys to pursue these careers, rather than encouraging little boys to play with girl’s toys, and ending up turning them away from these careers as well. If I didn’t know better, I’d guess that the real purpose of this campaign isn’t about helping little girls, but rather about psychologically harming little boys.
The IET found boys were almost three times as likely as girls to receive science and maths toys for Christmas.
Maybe they just have more of an interest in these things on average. Unless you can cite evidence that these things are forced upon boys against their will, and deprived from girls who are interested in them, you can’t say for certain that this is a problem. I can only speak from anecdotal experience, but when I was a child, I would have much preferred a children’s Chemistry set to a tea party set, and it isn’t because I was brainwashed by marketing. It’s because that sort of thing genuinely would have appealed to me more.
Mr Lester said there was a new wave of toys specifically being marketed as gender-neutral to encourage more girls to explore their interest in STEM.
“It might not be a quick fix but getting behind No Gender December is a good start to redressing this imbalance,” he said in his blog post.
“That means that the best present for your daughter this Christmas may not necessarily be a nerf gun, but rather a ‘Jewelbot’, a ‘Roominate set’ or ‘Goldieblox’,” he wrote.
I have absolutely no issue with this. If a little girl finds these gender-neutral, STEM related toys appealing, then more power to them. It certainly seems like a fairer solution than forcing little boys to play with Barbie dolls against their will.
The No Gender December campaign started in 2014 by advocacy group Play Unlimited.
Sweden did this whole “Gender-neutral toys” thing first…
…And anyone who is a regular reader will know what a great success Sweden is right now.
A little over a year ago, Salon.com published an article by a self professed paedophile under the title “I’m a pedophile, but not a monster.” At the time I remember thinking to myself “Oh here we go, they’re trying to normalise paedophilia now, and we’re going to see more of this soon”, but fortunately, most of them tend to prefer to avoid the spotlight rather than embracing it. However, the aim of normalising it still stands, so if they can’t get more paedophiles to go public about their sickness, they’ll do the next best thing, and get that same paedophile to go public again. Gotta keep the message fresh in everyone’s minds.
A ‘non-offending’ paedophile is on a mission to change society’s understanding of underage attraction.
You see everyone, there’s nothing inherently wrong with paedophilia apparently. We’re all just stupid and need to be educated better so that we can understand it properly.
Todd Nickerson, from Tennessee, who sees paedophilia as a sexual orientation, wants to encourage other paedophiles to seek help and support for their sexual inclinations.
This much at least, I can agree with. I acknowledge the fact that this is just how these people are wired, and they can’t choose not to be attracted to children, anymore than a gay person can choose not to attracted to people of the same sex, or a straight person to people of the opposite sex. However, I think the kind of help and support made available to these people should be limited to a counselling service of some kind, and chemical castration, and it should be kept private. They shouldn’t be looking for sympathy and acceptance from the general public for their sickness, because once we start tolerating his sickness, who knows what the next step could be.
The 43-year-old is a moderator for the online forum ‘VirPed’, short for ‘virtuous paedophiles’, which already has a few thousand users.
Scary to think just how many of these people are out there.
‘Virtuous paedophiles’ is a term given to people who are attracted to prepubescent children but control their urges and refrain from watching child pornography or seeking sexual contact with minors.
Nickerson said: ‘I am a paedophile. I’m not a monster. I have the attraction but I don’t act on it.
Does this guy want a medal or something for being good enough to not molest children? Just really think about what’s happening here. He knows damn well that his desires are wrong, and claims to be a good person because he doesn’t act upon them. Yet at the same time, instead of just going about his life as a “virtuous paedophile” in silence, he’s going public about his desires, trying to illicit sympathy from the public about it, with the aim of changing how people think of paedophiles. Why would he be bothered trying to change how people view paedophiles, unless he wanted to make it something that was seen as normal and acceptable?
‘I have never ever sexually abused a child and I never will. I do not look at child porn, I never will. I obey the laws, I respect the laws, I respect society’s position on this. I understand it and agree with it.’
Interesting. So he claims he will never abuse a child or look at child porn, then at the same time specifically mentions that he obeys and respects the laws on the matter. I can’t help but worry, that the only reason he doesn’t act upon his desires is because he fears punishment under the law, and that if those laws were to change, and society’s attitude towards paedophiles was to become more tolerant (the latter of which he is actively working towards), would he still refuse to ever do those things? They way I’m interpreting this is that he only doesn’t do them because it’s forbidden to do so and he fears the consequences.
Nickerson describes himself as a non-offending minor attracted person (MAP) and says paedophiles are capable of living a happy, productive, law-abiding life.
I’m sure they are, but that doesn’t mean they should go public about their attraction and try to change how the rest of society views them. They should just keep quiet, not harm children, and just get on with things.
He said: ‘Not all paedophiles are child molesters not all child molesters are paedophiles.
‘A paedophile is strictly speaking just somebody who has sexual attraction to children – they may act on it they may not.
‘A lot of people think that if you are attracted to kids, you have some kind of unusual degree of urge to go out and attack kids and it’s not like that.
BUT YOU LITERALLY DO HAVE THAT URGE!!!
He’s right when he says that it doesn’t mean they’ll actually do it. However, all paedophiles, whether they act upon it or not, literally have an “unusual degree of urge” to do sexual things with children, which would be classified as an attack, because children don’t have the maturity to give informed consent to those acts.
‘The people that struggle with it have self control issues and we just try to encourage them – sometimes we have to use tough love because one problem with paedophiles at times is that they are very good at deluding themselves.’
Nickerson went public as a paedophile in a blog for American liberal news site Salon in September 2015, and by doing so, received dozens of hostile replies on social media.
Yes, and we all know what a great source for top notch journalism, Salon is.
But that’s liberalism in general these days. It’s always about finding something new to liberate. After making so many strides in achieving equal rights for racial minorities, gay people, women, etc., they have to look further and further afield for new “victims” to liberate, so we inevitably see far left publications like Salon trying to liberate groups like paedophiles from all the “oppression”, “intolerance”, and “bigotry” they experience.
However, he also received a large amount of positive feedback – including messages from people who had suffered at the hands of paedophiles.
This is how it’s going to go.
Step 1: “We’re not monsters. We just have desires to engage in sexual acts with children, but we never act on them. Please tolerate us.”
Step 2: “We need to lower the age of consent. Children are sexual beings too, and should have the right to explore their sexuality.”
Step 3: Age of consent is already lowered, and those “virtuous paedophiles” obviously care about the well-being of kids seeing as they’ve never hurt them. Maybe we should trust them, and allow sex between adults and children.
Step 4: Anyone who objects is shamed and ridiculed as a “paedophobe” with backwards ideas that have no place in modern society. How dare they object to adults having sex with children. It is *current year* after all.
This is honestly how I see it going. I think we just need to look at the history behind the normalisation of homosexuality to see this. I’m not saying that homosexuality and paedophilia are comparable, but there was a time when homosexuality was as opposed by the majority of society as paedophilia is today. Yet today, homosexuality is accepted by almost everybody and we are amazed that there was ever a time when people thought differently.
It was only after decades of campaigning and a relentless push for mainstream approval (starting with just looking for tolerance and to be left alone in peace, followed by acceptance, eventually reaching today were we practically see gay people being celebrated as superior), that we reached the point were we’re at today. I do genuinely worry that we could see a similar “Paedo-rights” movement in the near future, modeled on the tactics used by gay rights activists in the past.
I only hope that people will keep in mind that there is a very big difference between two consenting adults of the same sex looking for equal rights as two of the opposite sex, and paedophiles looking for the same rights to engage in such acts with children. However, most people tend to think emotionally rather than logically, so I really wouldn’t be surprised if people could be manipulated into accepting paedophilia eventually, if they’re persistent enough, and the right emotional appeals are made.
He said: ‘Publicly, there was a lot of backlash but privately it’s been very different. I got hundreds and hundreds emails from people who were very supportive, a lot of which were from people who were survivors of abuse.’
That’s disturbing if true.
Nickerson has admitted that he is attracted to children as young as 3 or 4, but that his attraction peaks with children aged around 9 or 10 years old.
Although he is adamant he has never offended, he says he did have a moment of temptation when he was 18 while babysitting a five-year-old girl.
This is also disturbing.
Nickerson says his goals are twofold now – to end the demonisation of paedophiles and to encourage other offenders to seek support.
And that first goal is something I can’t ever approve of.
He said: ‘I’m a pioneer, I’m out here doing something that really needs to be done, raising awareness and letting people what people like me deal with and struggle with.
‘I am neither proud nor ashamed of being a paedophile, at this point I just accept it – it’s who I am.’
That’s fine, accept yourself if you want. Just don’t go expecting the rest of us to accept you in the same way.
You might wonder to yourself, what could possibly be behind the push to normalise paedophilia? Well it’s quite simple really. There are a lot of very powerful and influential people in the world who have this perversion, and would like to see it normalised.
This isn’t about compassion for the “poor non-offending paedophiles who can’t help being attracted to children”. This is purely an attempt by powerful figures with sick urges towards children, to use their influence and that of the media to manipulate the masses into accepting, and eventually legalising their perversions. I only hope that people remain steadfast in their convictions that this is something we should never show even the slightest amount of tolerance for.
So a writer for the Irish Times engaged in a most heinous act of crimethink by daring to criticise feminism in an article he wrote. It wasn’t very well written, but the general point he made was that it might make more sense for feminists to engage more with good men to solve problems they face, rather than alienating us by treating us all like we’re potential rapists and misogynists.
Luckily a brave feminist has decided to stand up against this misogyny, by writing a response (as is her right). I have decided to write a response of my own to her response.
Having managed to injure myself by falling off a pavement, I’ve been confined to my couch for several days (and secretly delighted). To allay cabin fever I’ve been reading a lot, and today I finished Nigerian author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s eloquently-argued essay “We Should All Be Feminists.”
It’s a short, simple but enlightening piece, adapted from a TEDx talk, where she points out that anyone, male or female, “who believes in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes” is by definition a feminist. It’s really that simple.
Imagine if the Pope was to say that anyone who believes that Jesus Christ was the son of God is a Catholic by definition. I bet that would piss of a lot of Protestants who don’t want anything to do with Catholicism. They may agree with the core issue, but there’s a lot of other baggage that comes with Catholicism beyond that core issue that need to be considered. It’s the same with feminism. A person can believe in equality for the sexes, but that doesn’t mean they’re feminists because they might not necessarily agree with other aspects of feminism as an ideology. Feminism does not that have a monopoly on belief in the concept of “Gender Equality” anymore than Catholicism has a monopoly on Christianity.
So how has a word that basically means you believe in fairness become so loaded?
Might have something to do with the actions and words of self proclaimed feminists. I mean lets just look at these quotes from three very famous leading feminist theorists.
These aren’t just random nobodies. Dworkin, Solonas, and Gearhart are all highly influential and respected figures in feminist history. Beyond these quotes, lets consider some of actions committed under the banner of feminism.
They’ve given us the Duluth Model for dealing with domestic violence, which automatically assumes that the man is the guilty party.
And those are just a few examples. The reason why feminism has gotten such a bad reputation is obviously because of the actions of people who call themselves feminists. Look I’m not saying that every single person who calls themselves a feminist engages in behaviour like this. But can you honestly blame people for not wanting to associate with the term after seeing things like this?
It was kind of bizarre and a tad depressing to read this balanced, rational essay and this weekend’s Irish Times opinion piece by business affairs correspondent Mark Paul in the same day.
“How dare that man have an opinion that I don’t approve of. I mean come on, hasn’t he ever read a dictionary?”
His article was a response to journalist Rosemary Mac Cabe sharing her experiences of harassment in a manner he perceived as accusing all men of being sexual predators (even though she clearly closes her thread by saying “It might not be all men, but it’s more than enough men”.)
In it he implores feminists – who he helpfully compares to “angry chickens armed with machine guns” – not to tar all men with the same brush. But for an article that calls for an end to sweeping generalisations, a title like “Feminists busy shooting themselves in the foot” seems pretty hypocritical, not to mention inflammatory.
The difference between his generalisation and hers is that feminism is an ideology that people choose to hold. Being a man is something you’re born as. Can you really not tell the difference? Here, I’ll make it easier by giving an example of how it works.
It would be wrong to generalise all German people from the 1930s and 40s as anti-semites just because anti-semitism was big in Germany at the time, as they didn’t choose to be born as Germans, any more than men choose to be born male. However, it would be perfectly appropriate to generalise all Nazis in Germany as anti-semites, because they willingly adopted the ideology . Even if they weren’t personally involved in persecuting the Jews, they still showed their support for the persecution, by adopting an ideology which was clearly anti-semitic.
There are so many things about this article that make me genuinely worry about the lack of understanding of what feminism actually is.
I always love this argument the most. They must really think we’re stupid, or just aren’t paying attention. No, it isn’t that we don’t understand. We’re constantly told about how “feminism is equality” and that we should just read the dictionary. There’s no way that we couldn’t understand, because we hear it all time. We just don’t believe you. That’s what it really is.
What’s especially worrying is the constant use of the word angry as an insult. For a time it seemed like the word feminism itself had come to mean “angry woman”, an image so laden with negative cultural connotations that ill-informed celebrities like Kaley Cuoco started to disassociate themselves from it.
As well as labelling “angry” feminists, this article is scathing of “loud feminists” throughout, with apparently no awareness that the obvious implication that a women being loud is somehow inherently negative might possibly be part of what those very feminists are angry about.
Yes because nobody ever looks at loud men or loud non-feminist women negatively. It’s just feminists who are looked at in a negative manner for being loud.
The inference is that women shouldn’t be angry. Even if we’re told we have a nice arse by our 50 year old boss at our first real job, as I was at 19.
That’s a good reason to be angry, I’ll admit. I would however suggest that if such a thing happens, you should stand up for yourselves by politely tell him that you don’t feel comfortable with such comments. If he apologises and doesn’t do it again, then great, problem solved. If not, then maybe take further actions such as making formal complaints of sexual harassment. Ideally, you shouldn’t have to endure such treatment at all, but unfortunately there are some assholes in the world and sometimes certain actions are necessary.
Even if we’re harassed or assaulted.
Another good reason to be angry. However harassment and assault are not exclusive to one sex. Men get harassed and assaulted too, sometimes even by women. Even The Guardian (yes, that paper I despise) recognises this.
Even if we’re slut-shamed.
It’s usually other women who slut shame,rather than men. That’s not to say that men don’t look down on promiscuous women too. Of course that can and most likely does happen. However they’re less likely to actually tell them this, because it’s not in their interest to shame them from having sex.
Even if we’re paid less for doing the same job.
You’ve already long since won that battle. If a woman is being paid less than a man for the same job without other variables such as hours worked per week, overtime, leave of absence (such as parental leave), years of experience etc., being taken into account, then that’s illegal. Instead of complaining about it, do something.
Even if we’re dramatically underrepresented within the systems that govern our bodies, our lives and our societies.
There’s nothing stopping women from running for public office, nor is there anything stopping other women from voting for them. There are no barriers preventing women from having representation in public office in the Western world. If you believe there are, then why not explain how exactly women are being kept out of government unfairly?
The reality is, that there are simply a lower number of women than men who are interested in putting themselves forward for election on average. Then, many of the women who do put themselves forward aren’t getting elected because he electorate, 50% of whom are women, aren’t convinced that they’re worth voting for. Obviously there are some women who not only are interested, but who are more than competent enough to serve, as evident by the handful of women who do indeed represent us in elected capacity.
Most ordinary women from the electorate however have enough sense to vote for a candidate based on merit, rather than their genitalia. Should we just start forcing more women into politics against their will, and automatically vote for them, just because they’re women?
Well actually, that is essentially Hillary’s entire campaign. “Vote for me because I’m a woman”.
The fact that no one at The Irish Times thought any of this language was offensive boggles my mind.
“I personally find this offensive. Therefore it shouldn’t be published. Only views and opinions which I agree with should be allowed.”
Some people genuinely feel like they don’t experience inequality on a day-to-day basis, and that’s fine. We’re all entitled to our opinions.
And yet you’re whining about this guy expressing his opinions.
But there are opinions and then there are facts. It’s a fact that research shows that one in 12 female students in Irish colleges are victims of rape or attempted rape. That’s something we should all be angry about, “ardent feminist” or not.
Here’s the actual study that these statistics came from. Look, in case I haven’t made it obvious from previous posts I’ve made, I’ll say it again right here. Rape is a crime that disgusts me, and I feel nothing but sympathy for anyone who experiences it. As far as I’m concerned, even one rape is too high a number.
However, from looking at the results, there are two issues that immediately stand out. One is the vague language about “unwanted sexual experiences”. What exactly is the definition of unwanted sexual experiences?
The other issue, is that of 4181 copies of the survey distributed, about 1400 weren’t completed. A previous study in America which came to the conclusion that 1 in 5 college women were sexual assault victims had a similar problem, and it has been suggested that this may have skewed the results because victims were more motivated to complete the survey than non-victims.
Situations like this, where a woman consents to sex but later regrets it, or willingly gets drunk, sleeps with someone, then decides the next morning to claim they were raped, are an insult to women who are genuine victims of this crime. I’m not saying that this is what happened in this study (it’s really too vague to tell either way), but I do think that 1 in 12 is a highly suspicious number. That would be an epidemic. Sweden, the country with the second highest rape statistics in the world, currently has a 1 in 4 figure allegedly. I’m just skeptical that we could really be have a figure as high as 1/3 as bad as that.
But according to this writer, rather than being angry, the best course of action for feminists is to quieten down, so that men might be more comfortable with us and make the world better for us. He suggests, “You want the word about unwanted harassment* to be heard by men? Then do it through other men.” We should demurely ask for a safe environment in which to get an education and the same opportunities as men, instead of demanding them.
Just a genuine question here, but what opportunities do men have in the first world that women don’t? Genuinely, I would like to know. If there really are opportunities that we have, but women don’t, then tell us what they are so we can work on fixing the issue.
The subtext is that no one is going to listen to an angry (one notch below “hysterical”) woman. Excuse me while my head explodes.
Anger is one thing. Whining is another. Nobody likes to listen to whining.
During my couch-based weekend I also watched The Hunting Ground, a chilling documentary on Netflix about not only the prevalence of campus rape at American universities, but the extent to which those universities have gone to to cover up sexual assaults in order to preserve their reputations. I would suggest that anyone seeking to question “the veracity of the concept of rape culture” – as this article does – watch it. Or read the TIME article about military sexual assault victims in the US being dishonourably discharged after filing complaints.
And yet feminists are still silent about the “rape culture” that is actually coming in to Europe as we speak.
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie closes her essay with a paragraph about “the best feminist she knows”, her brother Kene. There are a lot of wonderful male feminists. Obama is one. My boyfriend is one. My brother is one. My Dad is one – he bought me this book.
I feel like the idea that complaining about experiences of harassment openly and often might be the equivalent of “man-hating” is just harmful and dated at this point. Obviously not at all men are rapists. Can we just take that for granted and talk about what actually matters?
Yes, lets talk about what actually matters… the truth. Not hysteria and lies. Nothing but the truth.
Adichie ends by saying that “All of us, women and men, must do better”. And I can’t possibly say it any better than that.
If by “do better” you mean “blindly assume that every single thing that feminists say is true”, then I disagree. If you actually care about working towards a society in which men and women alike are treated as equals and given the respect they deserve, then I agree.
A Swedish headteacher has been reported to the country’s Equality Ombudsman for refusing to use ‘hen’, the new gender-neutral pronoun, in what could be a landmark case for transgender rights.
Can you even begin to imagine the trauma that this poor snowflake went through? How dare that evil headteacher not refer to “hen” by “hen’s” preferred pronoun? He must be a being of pure malevolence to commit such an evil act.
During a job interview the headteacher allegedly insisted on instead using the feminine personal pronoun ‘hon’ — meaning ‘she’ — while avoiding using the applicant’s preferred name.
Such terrible oppression. I know what it’s like. I wish everyone referred to me by my preferred name, “Sexy Von God Emperor”, but instead, everyone just calls me by the name on my birth cert. Every time that happens, I just want to go up to my bedroom and cry about how oppressed I am.
“I had never before encountered anyone who so deliberately neglected to call me by my name,” the interviewee wrote in her official complaint to the ombudsman. “And if that doesn’t happen, despite the headteacher knowing about it, then that is discrimination against me and my gender identity.”
“Please indulge me. I demand that you conform to my narcissistic worldview and believe what I believe.”
“My gender identity is non-binary, which in my case means that I neither identify myself as a man or a woman,” the complainant explained.
“I don’t identify with my biological sex… but I don’t want to transition to the other sex either. Instead, I’ll just stay in the body I was born with, and cry oppression if anyone calls me by the pronoun which refers to the biological sex of that type of body, because I’m special, and want people to bend over backwards to please me.”
“I felt inadequate as a person, and as if I couldn’t fully exist, as if my full gender identity and identity were not acceptable”.
You are pretty inadequate as a person in fairness, if this is the sort of thing that you whine about.
The Swedish Academy only included ‘hen’ in its official list of Swedish words in 2014, decades after the word — which is derived from the Finnish gender neutral personal pronoun ‘hän’ — was first proposed by gender equality activists.
I look forward to reading the definition they gave it in the latest edition of the Newspeak dictionary.
According to the language periodical Språktidningen, ‘hen’ was by 2014 used once in the Swedish media for every 300 used of ‘hon’ or ‘han’, up from one in every 13,000 in 2011.
The estimated percentage of people who are transgender is about 0.3% or 1 for every 332 people who aren’t trans. Therefore using that pronoun at a ratio of 1:300 is pretty good, even more so when you consider the fact that a lot of trans people would prefer to use the pronoun of the opposite sex to the one they were born with, rather than a special gender neutral one, which just separates them more from the norm.
However major newspapers still generally treat it as a neologism, with Dagens Nyheter for instance instructing journalists not to use it.
Wow, more evil hatred. Why is Sweden such an intolerant country? Next thing you know, they might do something really terrible like telling Muslims and Africans to stop raping their women.
Clas Lundstedt, a spokesman for the Equality Ombudsman, said that the agency had yet to decide whether to take the case to court.
“We have just started the investigation so we don’t know if we’re going to go to court with it or not,” he said.
As I stated in my last article, the recent mass sexual assaults in Germany were simply too large to possibly cover up, the normal tactic utilised by the authorities and the mainstream media when something like this happens. Because it can’t be covered up, their only option is to find a way to shift the blame to something which suits the narrative that they wish to present. And on that note, I would like you to meet Edward Siddons.
Edward recently wrote an article for the Independent, a paper that is easily on par with the Guardian in terms of its willingness to publish absolute trash. In his article, Edward chastises those of us who blame the German sex attacks on migrants, instead suggesting that the common factor that should be looked at isn’t the race of the perpetrators, but rather the sex. In other words, Arabs and North Africans aren’t to blame. Men in general are and it could just as easily have been 1000 native white German men who could have been responsible instead, an argument which to any sane and rational individual, will come off as completely retarded. So lets take a look at the article that he wrote.
New Year brings the hope of change, a new dawn for the wet-eyed optimists among us. Unfortunately, that gets pretty tricky when you’re a woman, forced to ring in 2016 dodging the gropes and blows of a violent mob as happened in Cologne.
I agree with this. It’s absolutely disgusting what those women had to endure.
Around 1,000 men gathered at Cologne train station and in their booze-fuelled rampage, fireworks were thrown into crowds, police officers were harassed, and most appallingly, women were assaulted on a massive scale.
If only there was a way to stop this. I’m sure that if civilised countries like Germany were to stop importing men from parts of the world, where women are treated as second class citizens (at best), and allowing them to roam free on the streets, that would be a good starting point.
German authorities report that around 100 complaints of sexual assault, threatening behaviour and robbery have been received, including allegations of rape. The men were predominantly of North African and Arab descent.
What a strange coincidence that in a predominately white society, the perpetrators were predominantly non-white. Seeing as we’re led to believe that all people are equal and there is no differences between the different races and cultures, then statistically speaking, this makes no sense. It almost suggests that maybe, just maybe, that there are in fact differences after all.
In response, a range of German politicians have clamoured for stricter border controls, as 1.1 million migrants have entered Germany in 2015. Far Right groups such as Pegida have monopolised on the opportunity to whip up racial tensions, organising marches and issuing divisive statements on the danger of the foreign integration.
“They just hate them for their skin colour and are opportunistically using logical reasons to justify their hatred. The fact that those logical reasons are based on fact and objective reality, doesn’t matter.”
Condemnation is an act of distancing, or signalling one’s own moral values in relation to an event, or in this case, a people. The North African and Arab perpetrators are not like us: they are symbols of misogynistic cultures in which the routine sexual assault and rape of women is normalised. Ultimately, they are different.
…Does this mean that you agree with us then?
In focussing on difference, in this case, racial or ethnic difference, we miss vital similarity. There is a common thread throughout these assaults and the vast majority of violence against women throughout the world. The perpetrators are men.
No, of course not. He doesn’t agree with us at all. I will say that this argument makes absolutely no sense to me though. If he admits that these men come from cultures which are inherently misogynistic in nature, then why should we allow them to roam free in our homelands? Why should we allow these men an opportunity to harm the women in our societies? What is the point? What are the benefits?
The anti-migrant lobby won’t compel their rightful disgust at Cologne’s events into combating the swinging cuts to domestic and sexual violence charities throughout the UK. They won’t support the actions of Sisters Uncut and other women’s groups fighting to put violence against women back on the agenda. They aren’t even likely to push for the most reliable solution to events like Cologne: a robust program of sexual and emotional education that comprehensively deals with rape, sexual assault and gender imbalance.
Instead, the energies of the Right will be poured into closing the borders and refusing refuge. Those who have never fought for women’s rights will opportunistically use women’s sexual trauma as the vehicle for their xenophobia, another brick for their much-loved border.
Here we see the classic SJW tactic of trying to divert from the issue at hand. A huge number of women were sexually assaulted as a direct result of policies that people like this deranged idiot supported, and instead of sticking to that topic, he tries to take the argument off on a tangent, to an area he’s more comfortable discussing.
Regarding the cuts to domestic and sexual violence charities, I do have a suggestion there. Maybe if European countries stopped spending money on the fake refugees that people like Edward support, they could perhaps afford to spend more on those charities. Of course, I bet they wouldn’t need to spend as much then either, as I reckon there would coincidentally also be a huge decrease in sexual violence, thus leading to a reduction in demand for their services.
Cologne should act as a wake up call to attack the gender violence that pervades all societies. It must not become a battle cry for those who oppose that idea that maybe, just maybe, we have a moral duty to those fleeing from genocide, famine and civil war.
I don’t see any point in addressing this, as I’ve done so in countless posts already which can be read instead. I will say this much though.
THEY AREN’T FLEEING A CIVIL WAR!!!!
There’s no civil war in Turkey (a fellow Muslim country where these people should be able to fit in just fine), so once they get there, any further they go is just for economic purposes. If the EU really wanted to help anyway, they could do so quite easily by sending money to Turkey to invest in their camp facilities, and by sending food and medicine over. There’s absolutely no need for these people to be brought into Europe and set loose among the native population. The only reason this is done is because people like Edward are evil and/or insane, and want to see Western society collapse.
On the plus side, the comments are very much against Edward and his retarded article. Here’s a few that I’ve screenshotted.
The tide seems to be turning though. People are sick of having reality denied.
As Western society sinks further and further into the depths of depravity, it can hardly be considered surprising to see something like this being pushed as the next “civil rights frontier”. I really think we’re getting closer and closer to the inevitable collapse.
I don’t really feel like doing the usual thing were I respond to the article piece by piece. I’m so disgusted and saddened by seeing something like this, that I really just don’t have the heart to respond to it like I normally would. I certainly can’t find any humour in a topic like this. Quite frankly, I think it’s an absolute disgrace. The link to the article is there, if people want to read it for themselves. Comments are unavailable conveniently enough (hmm, I wonder why).
Why has it gotten this far? I knew that people would be trying to lobby for paedophile liberation eventually, but I didn’t think it would be this soon. I assumed that polygamy, bestiality, and necrophilia (not that I myself condone those things) would be promoted for legalisation and understanding beforehand (seeing as I figured most people would have less concerns about animals, corpses, or multiple consenting adults, than children, and therefore be more likely to accept it).
The fact that they’re trying to push something like this already, is highly disturbing to me. Has the world gotten so sick and depraved, that they actually feel confident enough to speak about something like this openly? I really hope this concept doesn’t actually begin to gather steam. In the pathetic overly tolerant world that we live in today, plenty of know-it-all do-gooder morons, would happily get on board, just to show everyone how progressive they are.
Of course, we can always count on a Swede to support such insanity.
Fresh off their article claiming that the trauma of the holocaust somehow altered the DNA of survivors, or the one talking about “real vampires”, The Guardian has come out with perhaps their greatest piece of journalism yet. Some gay black guy crying about straight white men allegedly having gay sex. The article whines about straight people. It whines about men. Best of all, it whines about straight men who happen to be white. This is like the ultimate wet dream for The Guardian’s top brass.
If I have learned anything in my life so far, it’s that the only group of people more obsessed with touching a penis than gay men is straight ones. Promise.
I began noticing this all the way back at my very white elementary school, when boys would roughhouse and grope each other on the playground while always making sure to punctuate their grabs with gay slurs that called the receiver of that grab a homosexual.
Has anyone else ever observed behaviour like this? This just seems too stupid to be believable. Nevertheless, as far as the writer is concerned…
As I got older, those grabs evolved. And over time – especially once I got to my very white college – the grabs from straight men became caressing or kissing or, for the bold, sex. And during all of this, these men, these straight men who were always my bully growing up or even in college classrooms, maintained their straightness while I was constantly reminded of how they despised my gayness even as I entertained their episodic gay-interests.
I don’t understand what’s actually happening here. Is this gay guy complaining that he got to sleep with a bunch of allegedly straight guys? Is he trying to say that they oppressed him somehow by sleeping with him while claiming to not be gay? I’m two paragraphs in, and already I have no idea what the fuck is going on. This article seems to be an incoherent mess. Is he too stupid to understand that these “straight” guys were either bisexual, or in denial about their own homosexuality? Does he really believe that an actual straight guy would have sex with another man?
And I am not alone in being the object of ambivalent, conflicted desire by men who identify as straight.
“I think homosexual desire and homosexual contact are staples of the human experience,” professor Jane Ward, University of California, Riverside, recently told me. “But are also subject to incredible cultural baggage.”
But why are all these straight men vying to take a swim in the rainbow pool?
Because they aren’t really straight you stupid moron.
Ward, who recently published her latest book, Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men, asked herself a similar question years back after hearing from a man she went on a date with about how ‘gay’ his straight fraternity had been.
From her research, she has arrived at an interesting conclusion: straight men – specifically white men – are having sex with other men to affirm just how straight they are, because to be straight and still be able to perform ‘gay sex’ – while always remaining uninterested – is the height of white masculinity. And they are the primary group doing this, because they can.
…seriously, when the fuck did this become a thing? When did having gay sex become the ultimate way to prove you aren’t gay? This is an Orwellian level of mind-fuckery.
“Sometimes white people, and men in particular, bristle at the concept of ‘privilege,’” she says, speaking more broadly about the term that many use to describe inherent advantages white people have due to skin color.
Oh yes, all those wonderful advantages we all supposedly have, but nobody ever actually explains to us what they are, because whenever they try to, they usually end up being proven wrong.
“But in the context of [my] book, recognizing privilege isn’t about denying what is unique about individual straight white men; it’s about recognizing that straight white men have some unique cultural resources they can draw on to explain away and justify their presumably discordant sex practices.”
Are you going to name what those “cultural resources” are? No, of course not.
According to Ward, this behavior is very much tied to their white privilege, heteronormativety and male privilege to create a nexus in which straight white men can have sex with one another and face no repercussions.
“White men have more room to push sexual boundaries without being immediately pathologized [due to their privileges],” she continued.
What are these alleged “privileges” that allow straight white men to have gay sex without being thought of as gay? I know the whole article is complete bollocks, with no basis in reality whatsoever, but assuming it could be true, the only possible explanation I can think of is that white people, as well as being the least racist of all races, are also the least homophobic. Therefore, they’re less likely to give their peers a hard time for engaging in such activities. That’s not some unearned privilege. Rather, it’s a failing on the part of the other races. Assuming that is the reason, why should white people feel guilty because members of other races are more homophobic than them?
And she’s right – and I am annoyed that she is on a certain level.
The group that faces less violence, while perpetuating it the quickest in our current moment, is straight white men.
Except as I‘ve pointed out already, when you adjust for a per capita basis, the demographic who commit the most violence are actually black men, not white.
I don’t have an issue with straight men having sex with other men and not calling it gay or having it change their identity.
And yet you write an article crying about it.
People can and should do whatever they desire as long as it’s consensual. But what I find annoying is how this game called life is so unevenly stacked – with one group holding all the cards.
We see that with the disproportionate ways in which people of color face police violence, poverty, health disparities and this list could keep going.
I’m actually fed up repeating myself. I’ve debunked this stupidity over and over again on this blog. I really just don’t have the energy to repeat myself again. I just suggest reading here,here, or here just as a few samples instead.
As a gay man, who has faced violence for being gay, to see evidence that shows the very men that perpetuate this violence are doing the same sexual acts as me to show just how ‘straight’ they are is absolutely gross – and homophobic at best.
(Or how problematic is that white straight men get a whole book in many ways defending their straightness, but black men are most of the time demonized with words like ‘down low’ in books about their lives.)
It’s a wonder this guy ever actually managed to find the time to write this article, what will all the crying he seems to be doing about this alleged oppression that he has experienced.
Being gay is still not easy, especially as a person of color. And thanks to the help of the marriage equality movement, being gay is becoming less and less gay, and much more straight – with many seeing ‘us’ as finally close to being straight. This thought has even led to our gayborhoods beginning to disappear as acceptance of LGBT people rises.
In 2015, gay seems to be less gay than it ever has been. And while I want acceptance of us in the world at large, I still want us. I want us queer, I want us to have individualistic characteristics as a group, I want us to have something that is ours and not something that a straight white man can play with to prove just how much of a man he is.
I’m not any less confused now than I was when I first start reading the article.
But what I don’t want is to hear that white privilege not only lets straight men get paid more than me, face less violence than me, live longer than people like me, but also have sex with other men and not facing any of the violence people like me face – because that is incredibly infuriating.
As he didn’t actually cite any sources for those claims he made, I’m not even going to bother responding to them. It’s not my job to do his research for him.
Holy shit, that was one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever read. Even by The Guardian’s already low standards, it stands out as being particularly bad. I’m starting to think that Waterford Whispers is a more credible news source at this point.
So, I’ve made my views on transgenderism quite clear throughout my writings here. For anyone who has missed it, my opinions in a nutshell are as follows:
It is a completely separate issue from being LGB. LGB refers to a non heterosexual sexual attraction. Transgenderism is more akin to a body dismorphic disorder and in my opinion, shouldn’t be lumped under the same banner as LGB.
While I don’t doubt that transgender people are serious about their feelings (i.e., I don’t think they’re just doing it for attention), I don’t believe that it’s normal. I believe that it’s some kind of neurological disorder, and treating it as anything else based on the evidence that currently exists, is completely unethical.
Sex changes are biologically impossible. If a biological male takes estrogen supplements, and has his genitalia surgically removed, it doesn’t turn him into a female. It just makes him a feminised male with an irreparably mutilated genitalia.
It shouldn’t be promoted as normal. As it stands, we don’t know for certain if people are just born that way, or if impressionable children, whose brains are still developing, may rewire themselves based on environmental stimuli. If it’s the latter situation, kids may see this idea that gender is fluid, and with an overactive imagination, think they themselves are the wrong gender, get raised as such, then only realise the truth when it’s too late, thus destroying their lives in the process.
Instead of encouraging people to transition, they should be encouraged to accept themselves for who they are. Assuming that Dr. Paul R. McHugh’s figures are true (and I consider him a more credible source than the Tumblr misfits who cry about him), if about 70% of people who express gender identity disorder are just going through a phase, and the suicide rate for post-op transexuals is 20 times higher than that of the general public (suggesting that it either doesn’t help them, or it in fact makes things worse), surely encouraging it, is completely immoral, right?
I’m fully opposed to bullying or discriminating against transgender people, because I think it’s wrong to do that. However, while I don’t believe they should be treated badly, I don’t see why everyone else should have to deny objective reality and play along with their delusions. They have the right to their own beliefs, but I, and everyone else have a right to our own beliefs as well.
Unless a heterosexual male is actually willing to treat “transwomen” the same as any natural born woman by dating them, they don’t actually believe that they are really women, and therefore shouldn’t claim that they do. Doing so is a case of doublethink. Same goes for women and “transmen”. It’s wrong in my opinion to claim that you believe they are something if you yourself aren’t willing to treat them as such.
If we start treating this as normal, where does the insanity stop? I know people aren’t big fans of the slippery slope argument, but what exactly makes a person identifying as the opposite sex different from someone identifying as a different race, identifying as a different species, identifying as demons or even, identifying as weather patterns (that last one is completely true btw. I actually saw a video making fun of a guy who claimed he was a raincloud). Seriously, what makes transgenderism perfectly normal, but not any of those other things? As far as I can see, they all involve people denying objective physical reality because they feel different.
If someone could actually provide credible scientific evidence, that sex changes are in fact biologically possible, that post op transexuals only commit suicide because of discrimination, and not because they regret their decisions or are just emotionally unstable, and that the condition is purely nature rather than nurture (ie. promoting it as normal will not cause non-transgender kids to become transgender), then I’m willing to change my views. All I care about is getting to the truth, so if I’m proven wrong, I’m willing to accept it. However, usually all I hear are emotional tirades about how it’s “bigoted” or “transphobic” to think this way. I never hear any arguments of substance and logic.
Anyway, that was actually a much bigger “nutshell” than I expected. I guess I just wanted to make my opinions clear, before getting to the main point. I recently came across a video that I wanted to share. It features parents of an older girl, and a younger boy of age 4. The boy, named Jack, decided at age 3 that he wasn’t happy being a boy, and wanted to be a girl. So his parents have started treating him as if he is a girl, changing his name to Jackie in the process.
Now just think about that for a second. This child is only 4 years old, and made his decision at age 3. Can anyone honestly name one 3 year old in the world that actually fully understands the differences between boys and girls? How can a child that young make such a decision? How can they be sure that he isn’t just simply looking up to his older sister and wanting to be just like her?
How can they seriously allow a child that young to make such a life changing decision? It’s one thing to just let him play with girly toys, watch girly TV shows, or have female friends. I see no reason why the child can’t play with whatever toys he wants, view whatever TV shows he wants, or have whichever friends he wants. However, this idea of actually denying biological and objective physical reality, by actually pretending he is a girl just seems ridiculous. But this brings me to the title of the post. I was looking through the comments on the video, and holy shit, it seems that the vast majority of people agree with me. Of course, it makes sense that the opinions expressed online, differ from what you see in the real world. People are anonymous online, so they don’t need to fear any consequences of expressing such views. It’s surprisingly unanimous though. I would have assumed that there would be enough people who hold the opposite view too, to be somewhat vocal and debate their points, but there’s barely anything. The vast majority of commenters seem to share my views (or in many cases, make my views look moderate). The video is there, if people want to check the comments out for themselves, but I’ll just share a few so you can get an idea of what people are saying.
And those are just a few examples. There are loads more comments along these lines. Of course, there are people on the other side of the argument too, but they’re just a minority. This makes me ask the question, if the vast majority of people feel a certain way, then why exactly is the mainstream media always promoting the exact opposite, and trying to pass it off as if that is the general consensus? Well, I actually could explain quite easily why, but experience tells me that doing so isn’t as effective as having people find out for themselves. Once you understand how the mainstream media works, everything just falls into place then.