The Canadian government is funding these online educational material for children. That first paragraph is absolutely barking mad. teentalk.ca/learn-about/ge….
"Gender identity is how a person feels and who they know them self to be when it comes to their gender." 🤨
I also love how, on a site ostensibly for information on gender, sexuality, and sexual health, they chose to include "(de)Colonization" and "Diversity and Discrimination."
Anyone who thinks doctors are assigning "gender identity" rather than simply observing and recording an infant's sex is a lunatic.
"Someone may be born with a vagina but know themselves to be male."
Raving mad.
Two-Spirit
"It can mean a person who walks between genders; one who carries the gifts of both males and females, or one who is gender unique (not specific to any gender) and/or as a way to identify as 2STLGBQ+."
Genderqueer
"...between or beyond genders..."
"Gender expression is not related to someone's gender..." 🤨
Personal taste in clothing/makeup/hair style. Got it.
All brought to you by Canadian tax dollars. 🇨🇦
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm publishing a full refutation of this ridiculous piece on my Substack tomorrow. Dr. Vilain is often touted by TRAs as the foremost expert on this topic, but his arguments are shockingly bad.
It's going to be a free post because I want to reach as many people as possible. I want to defeat this ideology, and paywalls won't help in that regard.
But if you'd like to support my ability to keep these coming, please consider becoming a subscriber. colinwright.substack.com
Scientific American once again beclowns itself by publishing pseudoscientific nonsense denying sex differences in sports, and appropriates intersex people to argue that non-intersex male athletes should be allowed to compete as females. scientificamerican.com/article/trans-…
The article claims that "there is no scientific case for excluding them." I would just like to point you to a 2021 review paper in Sports Medicine that makes the scientific case in intimate detail. Surely the authors must know of its existence.
As I've said before, I view defending not just sex diffs but the reality of biological sex itself as reality's last stand. If/when the levee completely breaks on this issue, then we've lost our collective tether to reality and all the dominoes fall.
1/ 🚨 ALERT: Plaintiffs Gabriella & William Clark reply to Democracy Prep Public School (DPAC) on abusive Critical Race Theory program.
"A school cannot, under the guise of 'curriculum,' invade its students’ consciences and require them to affirm beliefs they find repugnant."
2/ DPAC denies that W. Clark was compelled to say anything or profess any particular belief.
Plaintiffs reply that the required, graded assignments were a form of compelled speech.
"Speech is compelled if a speaker will 'suffer a penalty' for declining to speak."
3/ DPAC insisted speech was not compelled because W. Clark was not required to "publicly" affirm his identities.
Plaintiffs: Not true, because W. Clark was required to enter the statements on Google documents accessible by his teacher, principal, and other employees.
1/ I think a lot of this could simply be due to a re-definition of what "gender" means to some Millennials and GenZ. If your sexuality is now defined according to what "gender identity" (as opposed to sex) you're attracted to, then this would augment the number of LGB people.
2/ And since "gender identity" is being largely defined according to identification with sex-based stereotypes, and being trans is to simply not "identify" with the stereotypes associated with your birth sex, then this will drive up the number of people identifying as trans.
3/ I'm a straight male, but I've been told by gender activists that I'm bisexual because I said I'd find Scarlett Johansson attractive no matter how she happened to simply identify. And because I don't identify entirely with all masculine stereotypes, I am considered non-binary.
1/ Sometimes the question shouldn't be "how do we eliminate X?" (where X is some societal ill), but rather "how much X are we willing to tolerate in a free society?"
For some bad things, we need to consider the costs associated with reducing them to zero.
2/ Take murder for instance. Murder is bad. We should all *want* murder rates to be zero. But what would that require? In short, the complete elimination of individual freedoms.
Most of us would (rightfully, IMO) likely deem this too costly.
3/ What this means is that we need to view low background rates of some bad things as not *necessarily* evidence that a system is faulty and needs to be revamped.
Now it's important not to go overboard and assume that current rates of bad things is the best we can do.