Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Canadian struggle session

156 replies

ArabellaScott · 17/09/2024 14:56

Independent MLA Jennifer Johnston has been forced to attend re education.

Quite a watch.

x.com/marco_huigenbos/status/1835818141160477015

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
Helleofabore · 18/09/2024 08:06

FlirtsWithRhinos · 18/09/2024 07:44

I'd still like to read the context not the paraphrasing of someone on very much the other side, from a movement that has made great capital out of asserting any opposition is hate and is therefore highly motivated to the worst possible reading of others' words.

I have not forgotten how the lady who quoted the very well known passage about "the big lie" to show how gender ideology was using the same methods as Naziism was gleefully reported by trans activisits as "we told you TERFS are Nazis, she even quoted Hitler!!!"

The "little bit of poo" analogy is widely used to explain that even if most of something is good, a small amount of very bad that cannot be removed from the good may be bad enough that the whole thing can't be done.

From the quote I read, she might indeed have meant "all trans kids are like shit", but she might also have meant "most trans identifying kids are fine but some are badly behaved or otherwise impacting the rest if the school" or "this ideology is harmful so even if it's only a few kids who actually identify as trans, endorsing the belief that mental gender exists and is more significant than sex has a bad impact on the whole community"

All I've been able to find so far is Trans Activits and allies gleefully performing aghastness.

I had typed out a long post that said just this. But you have said it all.

One thing that I have learned is that it is so important to know the full context. And to know what the entire apology said too.

As you say, it is a well used analogy.

ArabellaScott · 18/09/2024 08:26

XChrome · 18/09/2024 07:42

Your guess is as good as mine as to where that can be found.

Well, I'm afraid that does leave an awful lot of room for doubt. Doubt is something I've learned is very important, especially given the wider context of a culture and legislation that is pushing one narrative very hard, prone to manipulation, and frankly is dishonest.

If someone is arguing that men can be women, it's not really that big a leap to misrepresent a quote out of context and claim something else than what was actually said. The fact that the full quote isn't given is what arouses my suspicions.

OP posts:
SpidersAreShitheads · 18/09/2024 08:27

@ArabellaScott @FlirtsWithRhinos

I found this audio clip. I don’t know the actual full extent of the discussion but I do think her comments have been taken out of context (surprise….not).

To me, she seems to be saying that it doesn’t matter what children achieve academically if they’re allowed to permanently fuck themselves up in the process, because many will go on to regret it. Shes saying that indulging whims is unhelpful for the classroom and for the individual.

The optics probably aren’t great because they’re also laughing about modern indulgences and how parenting in the past wouldn’t have had any patience with gender confusion.

But, as expected, she’s not likening trans teens to “pieces of poop”. The point she’s making is that teens trans lives can be ruined by allowing chemical castration and no amount of academic success can override this. Allowing children to be chemically castrated is the “poop”, not the child themselves. Or at least that’s how I’ve interpreted this….

www.reddeeradvocate.com/news/ucp-candidates-hateful-comments-cast-shadow-on-important-lgbtq2s-day-6826590

DrBlackbird · 18/09/2024 08:31

Waitingfordoggo · 17/09/2024 20:45

Oh that’s so sad to hear @DrBlackbird. 😕

Really saddens me and I feel a gap has opened up between us. Last time we spoke she was very much a feminist critical realist. She seems to have been swayed by the argument that not allowing children to ‘transition’ Will result in suicide. That claim is so embedded as to be impossible to debate let alone to shake.

Shimmyshimmycocobop · 18/09/2024 08:33

I used to live in Vancouver, moved back to the UK 11 years ago. I'm not surprised the trans ideology has taken hold there, Canadians take pride in their politeness and kindness to the point it's part of their national identity.

One of the reasons I moved back is that often I felt unable to be myself or speak my mind . Colleagues and neighbours were polite to the point where you never really felt like you got to know them.
Mind you I moved back to Scotland 🙄 in some ways Canada and Scotland are similar in that they pride themselves on being nicer and more progressive than their larger, more powerful neighbours across the border and look where that has got us.

Cambiarenome · 18/09/2024 08:37

Whether it's a common analogy or not, it clearly should not be used when talking about children. It's dehumanising language.

ArabellaScott · 18/09/2024 09:03

Thanks for the audio. It starts midway through a conversation/speech/discussion.

She seems to be comparing the school curriculum/regime to a batch of cookies with a 'bit of poop' in it. It's a pretty lame and clumsily used metaphor imo.

But it seems quite clear she's not referring to children when you listen to the clip. Which is still not the entire clip, unfortunately. But she is not comparing children to faeces.

I don't have time to do a transcript; maybe later.

OP posts:
FlirtsWithRhinos · 18/09/2024 09:14

Cambiarenome · 18/09/2024 08:37

Whether it's a common analogy or not, it clearly should not be used when talking about children. It's dehumanising language.

But she isn't talking about children as poo is she? She's talking about a harmful belief/practice.

lcakethereforeIam · 18/09/2024 09:46

I've heard it used as a metaphor, in the vein of: would you take a chocolate from a bag if you were told most of them were delicious but one (only one) was a lump of shit coated in chocolate?

I'm assuming she was using it in that kind of context.

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 18/09/2024 09:51

XChrome · 18/09/2024 01:25

What was obnoxious was not that she won't say a trans identifier is a woman, but that she compared trans teens to shit.
She said high test scores in Alberta schools don't mean anything because there are a few transgender kids in the schools. She went on to elaborate thusly;

"Enjoy (the cookies), I only put a teaspoon of poop in them, but it doesn’t matter because it’s only a teaspoon in the whole batch. Same idea — we can be top three per cent, but that little bit of poop is what wrecks it.”

She's as much a kook as that trans nut is. Fuck both of them.

She had already apologised for that, but that apology (which appeared to be a real apology, not one of those non-apologies) is nowhere near enough for "Victoria", who requires her to submit to his bullying.

RedToothBrush · 18/09/2024 10:22

This Winston Moment gives a good opportunity to remind about Authoritarianism.

It can't be overstated just how dangerous deliberately destroying the truth is:

“It has frequently been noticed that the surest long-term result of brainwashing is a peculiar kind of cynicism — an absolute refusal to believe in the truth of anything, no matter how well this truth may be established. In other words, the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lies will now be accepted as truth, and the truth be defamed as lies, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world — and the category of truth vs. falsehood is among the mental means to this end — is being destroyed”
Hannah Arendt

Its effect is to destroy the power of truth tellers. And to make them feel powerless.

It is a deliberate act to destroy the will and agency of someone else to make them say something they know to be untrue. It is a demonstration of control and power over someone else.

Conversely it also creates this situation where other can exploit this sense of feeling powerless too.

She says that in destroying the truth we create a situation where truth is reduced to 'an opinion' in which a falsehood then holds equal value.

“To the extent to which unwelcome factual truths are tolerated in free countries, they are often, consciously or unconsciously, transformed into opinions.”
Hannah Arendt

This is why we see the likes of KJK supporting Trump - because destruction of the truth has destroyed trust in those saying it and has made people feel powerless. Thus the truth no longer has power, it has removed the agency and power that the truth gives and thus so the truth is no longer of value either as a tool or as having value.

It gives power to others who wish to exploit. This therefore is a threat not of either the left or the right but a threat to the autonomy and interests of the people and exposed them to abuse from authority and power.

Arendt talks about how to identify a truth and how to identify an opinion.

“the hallmark of factual truth is that its opposite is neither error nor illusion nor opinion…but the deliberate falsehood, or lie.”
Hannah Arendt

In other words the truth stands alone. A lie / opinion falls apart on scrutiny.

“Hence, even if I shun all company or am completely isolated while forming an opinion, I am not simply together only with myself in the solitude of philosophical thought; I remain in this world of universal interdependence, where I can make myself the representative of everybody else. Of course, I can refuse to do this and form an opinion that takes only my own interests, or the interests of the group to which I belong, into account; nothing, indeed, is more common, even among highly sophisticated people, that blind obsitnancy that becomes manifest in lack of imagination and failure to judge. But the very quality of an opinion, as of a judgement, depends upon the degree of its impartiality.”
Hannah Arendt

However truthfulness isn't useful to politicians and politics.

“truthfulness has never been counted among the political virtues, because it has little indeed to contribute to that change of the world and of circumstances which are among the most legitimate political activities.”
Hannah Arendt

It's inconvenient. That's why politicians often don't like the truth.

“opinion, and not truth, belongs among the indispensable prerequisites of all power”

Politicians lie because it means they are then

“free to fashion his facts to fit the profit and pleasure, or even the mere expectations, of his audience”.
Hannah Arendt

This is exactly the principle that the official Leave Campaign admit they centred their entire campaign around: they gave voters the freedom to decide what Brexit meant on a individual level - to match their expectations - rather than being truthful about mainly of the limitations. Technically Leave didn't lie - they just omitted to tell the truth deliberately and avoided the inconvenient truths such as the Irish Border issue, the agency of the EU itself and the whole article 50 process - but it demonstrates the point. Farage's unofficial campaign lied and Boris Johnson later lied when he became PM.

A lie is politically useful because it can manipulate opinion, and politics is all about persuading people to change their opinion and support you. This makes it easier for liars to convince people than truthtellers. At least initially...

Arendt then talks about this is short lived precisely because the truth stands alone and doesn't collapse under scrutiny. She observed how the propaganda during the Vietnam war eventually collapsed with only those who were lying still believing in their own lies because they couldn't abandon their reasoning for it - because to do so would mean the collapse of the justification of their own unjustifiable actions.

(Does this sound familiar? There are now a few individuals who have done things to further gender identity and have left numerous harms in their wake because they pushed the lie and ignored the inconvenient truth).

She talks about this becoming a psychology of self-deception by saying that those who attempt to change reality
“will be tempted to fit their reality — which, after all, was man-made to begin with and thus could have been otherwise — into their theory”.

“the self-deceived deceiver loses all contact with not only his audience, but also the real world”.

Basically they lose the ability to separate their own lie from reality. They no longer understand that their opinion is not reflective of the real world.

This is fascinating and a useful thing to understand to know how to deal with such behaviour and persistent in believing known lies. I note how many some people continue in cults even after its leadership collapsed and it's been exposed as abusive to the world.

The UK, because it's only ever been partially captured, is an odd case and it's a thorn in the side of gender ideologists in other countries because it always is the reminder of the inconvenient truth and shows truthtellers are not completely powerless.

It's also why there will be more efforts to silence on international platforms.

In the UK we are starting to see the collapse of the lie. And the collapse of the power and control needed to maintain the lie.

We aren't there yet in the UK but we can see all of the dynamics above in real time between this gradual collapse in the UK and it's continued enforcement in Canada.

Toseland · 18/09/2024 10:25

A vision of us all in the future?
I find him offensive - he's taken a woman's name and is acting how he thinks a woman should dress and act - enough of this 'cultural appropriation'!

Toseland · 18/09/2024 10:25

A vision of us all in the future?
I find him offensive - he's taken a woman's name and is acting how he thinks a woman should dress and act - enough of this 'cultural appropriation'!

MarieDeGournay · 18/09/2024 10:38

Cambiarenome · 18/09/2024 08:37

Whether it's a common analogy or not, it clearly should not be used when talking about children. It's dehumanising language.

I've thought this from the beginning - it was a bad way to express her thoughts, it was inappropriate language, and it left her open to accusations of comparing certain children to faeces. She apologised, as well she might.

Unfortunately, as we all know, apology or no apology, the Internet Never Forgets, and her 'poop' comment will continue to follow her around.

But none of that made me feel any different about the unacceptable, bullying lecture she was subjected to by an arrogant, hectoring man.

DameMaud · 18/09/2024 10:43

RedToothBrush · 18/09/2024 10:22

This Winston Moment gives a good opportunity to remind about Authoritarianism.

It can't be overstated just how dangerous deliberately destroying the truth is:

“It has frequently been noticed that the surest long-term result of brainwashing is a peculiar kind of cynicism — an absolute refusal to believe in the truth of anything, no matter how well this truth may be established. In other words, the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lies will now be accepted as truth, and the truth be defamed as lies, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world — and the category of truth vs. falsehood is among the mental means to this end — is being destroyed”
Hannah Arendt

Its effect is to destroy the power of truth tellers. And to make them feel powerless.

It is a deliberate act to destroy the will and agency of someone else to make them say something they know to be untrue. It is a demonstration of control and power over someone else.

Conversely it also creates this situation where other can exploit this sense of feeling powerless too.

She says that in destroying the truth we create a situation where truth is reduced to 'an opinion' in which a falsehood then holds equal value.

“To the extent to which unwelcome factual truths are tolerated in free countries, they are often, consciously or unconsciously, transformed into opinions.”
Hannah Arendt

This is why we see the likes of KJK supporting Trump - because destruction of the truth has destroyed trust in those saying it and has made people feel powerless. Thus the truth no longer has power, it has removed the agency and power that the truth gives and thus so the truth is no longer of value either as a tool or as having value.

It gives power to others who wish to exploit. This therefore is a threat not of either the left or the right but a threat to the autonomy and interests of the people and exposed them to abuse from authority and power.

Arendt talks about how to identify a truth and how to identify an opinion.

“the hallmark of factual truth is that its opposite is neither error nor illusion nor opinion…but the deliberate falsehood, or lie.”
Hannah Arendt

In other words the truth stands alone. A lie / opinion falls apart on scrutiny.

“Hence, even if I shun all company or am completely isolated while forming an opinion, I am not simply together only with myself in the solitude of philosophical thought; I remain in this world of universal interdependence, where I can make myself the representative of everybody else. Of course, I can refuse to do this and form an opinion that takes only my own interests, or the interests of the group to which I belong, into account; nothing, indeed, is more common, even among highly sophisticated people, that blind obsitnancy that becomes manifest in lack of imagination and failure to judge. But the very quality of an opinion, as of a judgement, depends upon the degree of its impartiality.”
Hannah Arendt

However truthfulness isn't useful to politicians and politics.

“truthfulness has never been counted among the political virtues, because it has little indeed to contribute to that change of the world and of circumstances which are among the most legitimate political activities.”
Hannah Arendt

It's inconvenient. That's why politicians often don't like the truth.

“opinion, and not truth, belongs among the indispensable prerequisites of all power”

Politicians lie because it means they are then

“free to fashion his facts to fit the profit and pleasure, or even the mere expectations, of his audience”.
Hannah Arendt

This is exactly the principle that the official Leave Campaign admit they centred their entire campaign around: they gave voters the freedom to decide what Brexit meant on a individual level - to match their expectations - rather than being truthful about mainly of the limitations. Technically Leave didn't lie - they just omitted to tell the truth deliberately and avoided the inconvenient truths such as the Irish Border issue, the agency of the EU itself and the whole article 50 process - but it demonstrates the point. Farage's unofficial campaign lied and Boris Johnson later lied when he became PM.

A lie is politically useful because it can manipulate opinion, and politics is all about persuading people to change their opinion and support you. This makes it easier for liars to convince people than truthtellers. At least initially...

Arendt then talks about this is short lived precisely because the truth stands alone and doesn't collapse under scrutiny. She observed how the propaganda during the Vietnam war eventually collapsed with only those who were lying still believing in their own lies because they couldn't abandon their reasoning for it - because to do so would mean the collapse of the justification of their own unjustifiable actions.

(Does this sound familiar? There are now a few individuals who have done things to further gender identity and have left numerous harms in their wake because they pushed the lie and ignored the inconvenient truth).

She talks about this becoming a psychology of self-deception by saying that those who attempt to change reality
“will be tempted to fit their reality — which, after all, was man-made to begin with and thus could have been otherwise — into their theory”.

“the self-deceived deceiver loses all contact with not only his audience, but also the real world”.

Basically they lose the ability to separate their own lie from reality. They no longer understand that their opinion is not reflective of the real world.

This is fascinating and a useful thing to understand to know how to deal with such behaviour and persistent in believing known lies. I note how many some people continue in cults even after its leadership collapsed and it's been exposed as abusive to the world.

The UK, because it's only ever been partially captured, is an odd case and it's a thorn in the side of gender ideologists in other countries because it always is the reminder of the inconvenient truth and shows truthtellers are not completely powerless.

It's also why there will be more efforts to silence on international platforms.

In the UK we are starting to see the collapse of the lie. And the collapse of the power and control needed to maintain the lie.

We aren't there yet in the UK but we can see all of the dynamics above in real time between this gradual collapse in the UK and it's continued enforcement in Canada.

Sorry to requote the whole post, but I often have to do that with Red's posts so I can easily save and retrieve.
So I wish you had a substack or book Red!
You make connections and formulations on the big picture aspects (and this is where my mind tends to go) that bring so much clarity.
Thank you

TempestTost · 18/09/2024 10:45

popeydokey · 18/09/2024 07:52

"Enjoy (the cookies), I only put a teaspoon of poop in them, but it doesn’t matter because it’s only a teaspoon in the whole batch. Same idea — we can be top three per cent, but that little bit of poop is what wrecks it.”

This analogy is often used when talking about abuse in relationships. It doesn't mean anyone is literally poo.

I think reading it as saying "trans kids are like poo" is pretty bizarre actually.

Without any further context, the most obvious reading to me is close to what you are saying. The schools may score great but if they are teaching gender ideology, transitioning kids without parents say so, or even allowing social transition with all the sexist nonsense and danger of escalation that involves, there is serious damage being done.

Would anyone be happy for their vulnerable kid to be in that environment, even if she came out with top marks?

Waitingfordoggo · 18/09/2024 11:03

MarieDeGournay · 18/09/2024 10:38

I've thought this from the beginning - it was a bad way to express her thoughts, it was inappropriate language, and it left her open to accusations of comparing certain children to faeces. She apologised, as well she might.

Unfortunately, as we all know, apology or no apology, the Internet Never Forgets, and her 'poop' comment will continue to follow her around.

But none of that made me feel any different about the unacceptable, bullying lecture she was subjected to by an arrogant, hectoring man.

This is exactly how I feel.

annejumps · 18/09/2024 11:10

The thing is he's not confronting her about the analogy, he's demanding that she say and believe that trans women are women.

quantumbutterfly · 18/09/2024 11:33

I thought I'd already peaked, turns out I can peak some more.

lifeturnsonadime · 18/09/2024 11:38

I know I’m massively missing the point but

‘grandma what big hands you’ve got….’ Was all I could think off when I saw him waving his hands at her for her wrong think. Wolf in sheep’s clothing. Canada is lost. 😞

quantumbutterfly · 18/09/2024 12:02

Hmm...
https://www.mtroyal.ca/ProgramsCourses/FacultiesSchoolsCentres/Arts/Departments/Humanities/Faculty/Victoria-Bucholtz.htm

... My current research project focuses on conflict, violence, and the political manipulation of emotions.
Teaching
...Development of critical analytical abilities is the core focus of my classroom.

www.ratemyprofessors.com/professor/2309010

'Victoria's' lecture reviews are good but this caught my eye.

Her class is very lecture heavy, you must take notes. Doesn't share her slides. Papers are based on what's talked about in class and textbooks, nothing more. You must write about what she believes based on the question, not what u think otherwise you won't do well. She was okay considering she took on the class at the end Sept. due to complications

My critical analytical abilities tell me that 'Victoria' is not a real woman. The old fashioned type.

They also tell me that Victoria is a bully who gets off on power imbalance.

Victoria Bucholtz | MRU

Mount Royal University programs align your passions and open doors. You belong here.

https://www.mtroyal.ca/ProgramsCourses/FacultiesSchoolsCentres/Arts/Departments/Humanities/Faculty/Victoria-Bucholtz.htm

RedToothBrush · 18/09/2024 14:10

Anyone in education should teach their students to think and question not to repeat rote what they have been told.

The end.

No further comment needed.

MoveToParis · 18/09/2024 14:42

Can any of the Aston watchers/fuckers give us a quick breakdown of the respective word counts per speak in the OP’s video. And a brief linguistic analysis under the theme “The Dominator”?

Maybe do something useful for a change.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 18/09/2024 15:30

popeydokey · 18/09/2024 07:56

My issue is not so much that I feel a burning need to say trans women are men, and more that I feel a burning need to not accept for myself a definition of Woman as a mental state that includes both male people and me.

What definition is that, though? They have never given one. "A male or female person" is as close as they get.

I'd be happy to at least consider a new definition of woman that differentiates ftom "man". There isn't one though, because they know it comes down to lady brains or feeling feminine or being a natural empathiser.

I understand what you are saying but I think it's a red herring.

Sure, there could be a legitmate and meaningful commonality between you, me and the men who currently call themselves women, something that once it was pointed out to me I would say "wow! Yes! Of course! This makes so much sense!"

But female bodied people would still exist in their own right. We would still have distinct challenges due to both our physical capabilities and the impact of societal sexism, and we would still need the language to talk about that, activate for change and potentially legislate for it.

So even if there were to emerge a genuine case for another definition, it still needs to stand alongside Woman with a new name, not replace and overwrite the meaning of Woman, because we, the female people, will still exist and we will still need our name.

In short, I don't need to know exactly how "woman that includes male people" is being defined to say it has a bad cost to me, because even if there is an entirely reasonable definition, making it a linguistic replacement for "adult human female" is still taking sonething important away from female-bodied people.

NoBinturongsHereMate · 18/09/2024 15:37

Exactly.

If people want to invent some sort of new super-category term, fine. But they can't take 'woman', because we're still using it.