Jun 26, 2023Β·edited Jun 26, 2023Liked by Matt Osborne
"No, children cannot consent to puberty blockers or sex changes.
No, genderbeings don't exist so no, we should not give them recognition in public policy."
This.
And ... "there are ππ°π¨ π¬ππ±ππ¬, male and female, and they are immutable from the moment of conception until the moment of death."
Jun 26, 2023Β·edited Jun 26, 2023Liked by Matt Osborne
It's hard to be part of the resistance against gender-identity ideology in the comment section of The New York Times. There, the only comments that are published are those that meet with the the approval of the moderators.
Having seen what a zoo unmoderated comments can be, I support the use of reviewers to ensure comments are germane to the topic and observe reasonable standards of civility. However, prior approval becomes problematic when it appears the reason for exclusion isn't the comment's tone or relevance but its point of view.
Over the weekend I experienced for the first time what might well have been viewpoint discrimination at the NYT. I was responding to a story that appeared under the following lede:
The story, told from the perspective of a member of the Pride organizing committee, recounted how the community overcame the objections of religious conservatives and proceeded to hold a peaceful and uplifting Pride celebration.
My comment wasn't directed at the Pride event itself but at the all-too-predictable inaccuracies in how the story was framed. As my act of resistance against possible trans censorship by proxy, here is what I wrote that a moderator at the New York Times didn't want readers to see:
Gay gender-critical Biden voter here. Let's separate fact from fiction.
Claim: "But this year . . . several conservative-led states have pushed through legislation targeting L.G.B.T.Q. rights and transition care for transgender minors . . ."
Fact: The legislation is aimed at curbing the excesses of trans rights activism, which include endangering minors with experimental gender medicine and stealing women's accomplishments by fielding males in women-only sports. The legislation does not directly target gay men, lesbians, bisexuals or queers per se. Its impact on them is the same as it would be on any other trans allies.
Claim: "Brands like Bud Light have faced boycotts over their support for L.G.B.T.Q. people . . ."
Fact: Bud Light and Nike would be happily counting the receipts from their Pride merch today but for their ill-informed and tone deaf decision to feature former theater gay and current over-the-top trans diva Dylan Mulvaney to represent their brands.
Mulvaney's jaw-droppingly ridiculous and unironic portrayal of a young woman so feminine that she makes 1950s-era girly girls look butch makes a mockery of women, biological and trans.
To put this in perspective for straight readers, Mulvaney is as suitable a vehicle for showing corporate support of "L.G.B.T.Q. people" as Aunt Jemima would be for demonstrating businesses' support of the BIPOC community.
In closing, readers should know that it's not necessary to be MAGA, straight or evil to hold critical views of the trans movement.
Re-reading what I wrote, I can see how a moderator could have deemed the comment a little too on-the-nose for the Times readership. It could have been worse; I could have said what I really thought about Dylan Mulvaney.
βIt wasnβt cute when Pee Wee Herman did it, and it isnβt cute when Dylan Mulvaney does it. Thereβs something repellent and unhealthy about an adult acting like a five year old.β
Does Medium ban commenters for the heresy of repeating this most basic of truths, or is it reserved for any authors who are so bold? [I'm pretty sure that I already know the answer, but wanting non-believers to be unable to even glance at your precious website is some incontrovertibly culty behaviour. It's the behaviour of a destructive cult, at that.
They explicitly said that denial of βgender identityβ claims e.g.that a βtrans woman is a manβ is a violation.
Of course a βtrans womanβ is a man. Some visual alterations and an otchiectomy donβt transform a man into a woman. Thatβs absurd, sex is immutable from conception to death.
But Mediums membership requires acceptance of a lie. Any dusptof that lie is an account suspension, whyis to say, a ban with no appeal.
I frequently get gender-critical comments into the NYT. There's an art to it. I would give yours zero chance of getting in. The tone is much too sarcastic. And including anything like "Aunt Jemima" is instant death.
Jun 26, 2023Β·edited Jun 26, 2023Liked by Matt Osborne
I work remotely mostly for non-American companies but were I still in the USA and in an office and HR told me I need to put my "preferred pronouns" in my email sgnature, or select them on a registration form, I would offer my cardkey and give them a choice to rescind the demand or take the cardkey and find someone else.
I'm currently taking a break from my post-baccalaureate degree program at the ultra woke Portland State University. When I return, I'm looking forward to the first day of class, when the professors are almost certain to ask the class for our preferred pronouns. The challenge will be to let those present know what I think of that progressive ritual without provoking any of my classmates to file a Title IX complaint against me for committing the grave sin of creating a hostile environment in the classroom.
I appreciate the strength of this statement, and the encouragement. I hate to think that America IS debate, though. That just makes me more weary than I already am. For me, it's more: Where the truth exists (i.e. Washington), it is often complicated. Where the truth demonstrably exists not (i.e. gender ideology), where belief stands in for fact or science, we should not waste our limited energy engaging nonsense in pointless debate, but instead squash it, if we didn't have the sense to simply ignore it initially.
And here's the frosting from Eugyppius to top Matt's cake:
Democracy is when you want what the late-stage liberal system wants to give you, and the system gives it to you. If you donβt want what the system wants to give you, your preferences are undemocratic and the system gives it to you anyway. Youβre free to protest the things the system hates, but if you protest the system or any of its agenda, thatβs undemocratic and youβll be water cannoned to protect democracy. Youβre free to believe in the principles espoused by late-stage liberal democratic politicians, but if you dispute them, youβre a danger to the free world and should be arrested.
Requesting adherence to the new religion of "trans" identity and ideology is incredibly useful for those who seek to establish new top-down authoritarian orthodoxies. Anyone who thinks that the gleeful corporate enthusiasm for insisting that all others "respect" this monumentally disrespectful ideology, which demands that all disregard and suppress the evidence of their own senses and their own instinctive reactions is genuinely borne of "kindness" has either not been paying attention, or is a fool.
Oh but the βtransβ activists push for surgery at ever younger ages. Because the results are more visually successful. Never mind that the child will grow up into a eunuch with somatic and psychological problems.
After all, it gets the advocates bigger audiences.
So they leak piss all their lives. Itβs worth it to live as their βtrue selves.β
Indeed. The activist lobby group WPATH has removed all "suggested minimum ages" for any trans "healthcare" interventions, whether pharmaceutical or surgical from their most recent guidance.
"No, children cannot consent to puberty blockers or sex changes.
No, genderbeings don't exist so no, we should not give them recognition in public policy."
This.
And ... "there are ππ°π¨ π¬ππ±ππ¬, male and female, and they are immutable from the moment of conception until the moment of death."
It's hard to be part of the resistance against gender-identity ideology in the comment section of The New York Times. There, the only comments that are published are those that meet with the the approval of the moderators.
Having seen what a zoo unmoderated comments can be, I support the use of reviewers to ensure comments are germane to the topic and observe reasonable standards of civility. However, prior approval becomes problematic when it appears the reason for exclusion isn't the comment's tone or relevance but its point of view.
Over the weekend I experienced for the first time what might well have been viewpoint discrimination at the NYT. I was responding to a story that appeared under the following lede:
"After right-wing activists portrayed a Pride event in Franklin, Tenn., as a threat to children, the small city unexpectedly found itself at the center of a backlash." https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/24/us/politics/franklin-tennessee-pride.html
The story, told from the perspective of a member of the Pride organizing committee, recounted how the community overcame the objections of religious conservatives and proceeded to hold a peaceful and uplifting Pride celebration.
My comment wasn't directed at the Pride event itself but at the all-too-predictable inaccuracies in how the story was framed. As my act of resistance against possible trans censorship by proxy, here is what I wrote that a moderator at the New York Times didn't want readers to see:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gay gender-critical Biden voter here. Let's separate fact from fiction.
Claim: "But this year . . . several conservative-led states have pushed through legislation targeting L.G.B.T.Q. rights and transition care for transgender minors . . ."
Fact: The legislation is aimed at curbing the excesses of trans rights activism, which include endangering minors with experimental gender medicine and stealing women's accomplishments by fielding males in women-only sports. The legislation does not directly target gay men, lesbians, bisexuals or queers per se. Its impact on them is the same as it would be on any other trans allies.
Claim: "Brands like Bud Light have faced boycotts over their support for L.G.B.T.Q. people . . ."
Fact: Bud Light and Nike would be happily counting the receipts from their Pride merch today but for their ill-informed and tone deaf decision to feature former theater gay and current over-the-top trans diva Dylan Mulvaney to represent their brands.
Mulvaney's jaw-droppingly ridiculous and unironic portrayal of a young woman so feminine that she makes 1950s-era girly girls look butch makes a mockery of women, biological and trans.
To put this in perspective for straight readers, Mulvaney is as suitable a vehicle for showing corporate support of "L.G.B.T.Q. people" as Aunt Jemima would be for demonstrating businesses' support of the BIPOC community.
In closing, readers should know that it's not necessary to be MAGA, straight or evil to hold critical views of the trans movement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re-reading what I wrote, I can see how a moderator could have deemed the comment a little too on-the-nose for the Times readership. It could have been worse; I could have said what I really thought about Dylan Mulvaney.
βIt wasnβt cute when Pee Wee Herman did it, and it isnβt cute when Dylan Mulvaney does it. Thereβs something repellent and unhealthy about an adult acting like a five year old.β
Medium will ban you for saying that a βtrans womanβ is biologically male.
It was once a great site. Now itβs shit.
Does Medium ban commenters for the heresy of repeating this most basic of truths, or is it reserved for any authors who are so bold? [I'm pretty sure that I already know the answer, but wanting non-believers to be unable to even glance at your precious website is some incontrovertibly culty behaviour. It's the behaviour of a destructive cult, at that.
They explicitly said that denial of βgender identityβ claims e.g.that a βtrans woman is a manβ is a violation.
Of course a βtrans womanβ is a man. Some visual alterations and an otchiectomy donβt transform a man into a woman. Thatβs absurd, sex is immutable from conception to death.
But Mediums membership requires acceptance of a lie. Any dusptof that lie is an account suspension, whyis to say, a ban with no appeal.
Well done. All democrats I know think trans is bunk BTW. Most donβt realize it has reached such a crescendo.
I frequently get gender-critical comments into the NYT. There's an art to it. I would give yours zero chance of getting in. The tone is much too sarcastic. And including anything like "Aunt Jemima" is instant death.
I work remotely mostly for non-American companies but were I still in the USA and in an office and HR told me I need to put my "preferred pronouns" in my email sgnature, or select them on a registration form, I would offer my cardkey and give them a choice to rescind the demand or take the cardkey and find someone else.
I'm currently taking a break from my post-baccalaureate degree program at the ultra woke Portland State University. When I return, I'm looking forward to the first day of class, when the professors are almost certain to ask the class for our preferred pronouns. The challenge will be to let those present know what I think of that progressive ritual without provoking any of my classmates to file a Title IX complaint against me for committing the grave sin of creating a hostile environment in the classroom.
Silence.
Let them accuse you of hostile silence.
I like "his royal majesty".
Say you identify as a hereditary male monarch.
Say it with utmost seriousness. Object if anyone questrions your identity.
"I am King of France, pronoun His Majesty. Kiss the ring and validate Us peasant"
[OBJECTIONS]
"Ceci invalide le discours de haine, nous ne nous sentons pas en sΓ©curitΓ©"
If someone tries to deadname your Royal Highness, file a Title IX complaint against *their* bigoted and intolerant ass!
Just say the pronouns are you/yours, get a beer and a cigarette and watch the bonfire
βI do not subscribe to the ideology behind that ridiculous question.β
Pause.
πΊπΈ
I appreciate the strength of this statement, and the encouragement. I hate to think that America IS debate, though. That just makes me more weary than I already am. For me, it's more: Where the truth exists (i.e. Washington), it is often complicated. Where the truth demonstrably exists not (i.e. gender ideology), where belief stands in for fact or science, we should not waste our limited energy engaging nonsense in pointless debate, but instead squash it, if we didn't have the sense to simply ignore it initially.
But as I said, I'm tired.
And here's the frosting from Eugyppius to top Matt's cake:
Democracy is when you want what the late-stage liberal system wants to give you, and the system gives it to you. If you donβt want what the system wants to give you, your preferences are undemocratic and the system gives it to you anyway. Youβre free to protest the things the system hates, but if you protest the system or any of its agenda, thatβs undemocratic and youβll be water cannoned to protect democracy. Youβre free to believe in the principles espoused by late-stage liberal democratic politicians, but if you dispute them, youβre a danger to the free world and should be arrested.
Requesting adherence to the new religion of "trans" identity and ideology is incredibly useful for those who seek to establish new top-down authoritarian orthodoxies. Anyone who thinks that the gleeful corporate enthusiasm for insisting that all others "respect" this monumentally disrespectful ideology, which demands that all disregard and suppress the evidence of their own senses and their own instinctive reactions is genuinely borne of "kindness" has either not been paying attention, or is a fool.
Brilliant. Thank you.
Bravo. Thank you.
I think they said "We wont go shopping" not "We've come for your children."
Oh but the βtransβ activists push for surgery at ever younger ages. Because the results are more visually successful. Never mind that the child will grow up into a eunuch with somatic and psychological problems.
After all, it gets the advocates bigger audiences.
So they leak piss all their lives. Itβs worth it to live as their βtrue selves.β
Indeed. The activist lobby group WPATH has removed all "suggested minimum ages" for any trans "healthcare" interventions, whether pharmaceutical or surgical from their most recent guidance.