This is a movement that contains some unlikely alliances like radical feminists and conservative religious groups agreeing on the need to safeguard children from trans ideology and protecting the fact of biological sex.
Thank you James you took the words right out of my mouth, I will go a bit further though, Julia is an awesome person, very few understand the risk she is taking as she will have people that are straight hate her and as well members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ will hate her for not towing the radical members line, reality is Julia has a friend in me for life as she has put her life and her families life at risk for even speaking on the points she does. If we all could just learn to be open and talk like Julia, Chanel and Catheine do is where we will find the solution to all the craziness our children have to deal with in their only time to be free of all societies weight.
As a life long follower of Darwinian theory, I have long held the belief that that the purpose of life is the preservation of the species and that sex, as it is in animals, is primarily for procreation not recreation. Transexual behavior is a corollary experienced by only 0.2 % of the Canadian populations and is not supportable by genetic evolution, yet its existence, as an unexplained phenomenon, perseveres in society. Certainly the conventions of inclusivity demand a measured accommodation of such an anomaly but not at the expense of societies most important institutions, our public schools.
For those who think that what Billboard Chris said is a problem, have you really listened closely to what Julia said in the first 10 seconds of the first clip? We can assume that the subject being described is identifying as a woman despite being biologically male. Here is what Julia said:
"And then over time, as I've been a bit more authentic with myself, I'm like,
yes, but - but it's not true. It's living a lie almost in a certain way. And I've
become more convinced that perpetuating that, not just - not just for other people even,
but for myself, isn't isn't helpful. "
Here is what Billboard Chris said:
"The ideology is what leads to children transitioning. When we uphold this lie, we’re active participants in promoting the ideology.
If he wants to help kids, he should embrace reality instead of making it about himself.”
Remove the names Julia and Billboard Chris. Where is the disconnect? What is the difference between saying "When we uphold this lie, we’re active participants in promoting the ideology" and what Julia said? Seriously, what's the difference?
Does using a person's transsexual pronouns uncompelled -whether we choose to dress that up as "liberal" or not- not contribute to the problem both Julia and Billboard Chris have alluded to?
Yes I believe it does, unless a very limited set of circumstances applies. One being that the use of the pronoun specifically not contribute to delusions - Julia does not think she is a woman. Julia also rejects gender ideology. I am simply open to the possibility that in certain situations the selective use of an uncompelled pronoun, if deployed where a clear rejection of gender ideology is agreed on by all parties, may not contribute to the (societal) problem, but may alleviate some of the suffering associated with an individual with legitimate gender dysphoria. But I am not convinced either way, that in such a circumstance, the use of the pronoun helps or hurts.
Words “she” and “he” are well defined in our language. The word "she" indicates that an individual belongs to a sexually dimorphic species and that this particular individual’s body has the potential to produce large gametes. Sexually dimorphism leads to different sexual behaviour of males and females due to the fundamental difference in the cost of sex. Therefore, knowing sex of a person is extremely important, which is why clear indicators of a person's sex exist in all languages.
If there is a characteristic that both women and Julia possess (and men sans Julia don’t) and if that characteristic requires a word to describe it, then Catherine and Chanel should have introduced that (new?) word and used it as they saw fit. As it is, Catherine and Chanel deliberately chose to mislead the audience by misusing the word “she”. And that has nothing to do with free speech.
No one involved with this essay, including Julia, thinks Julia is a woman, or is trying to convince anyone that Julia is a woman. However, even if this article was sophistry, which I don't think it is, it is still permitted to be freely spoken in a liberal society. Limitations on speech are only those things that can be said to incite hate or violence. The private choices people make to engage in what others may view as fantasy or sophistry, as long as they do not incite violence, is what liberalism protects. So I disagree, this article is about free speech - specifically the issue of compelled speech. Free speech is meant to extend to speech you do not like.
Like I have said to everyone who has pushed back. I don't think your position is unreasonable. The purpose of the video Julia made with Catherine and Chanel was to have a conversation with a trans person who holds a lot of reasonable views, that is, critical of gender ideology & trans activism. Julia also self-describes as classical liberal. Anyway, my limited experience with trans people has been with TRAs - who are awful and I do not support - However, I do believe that some people have real issues with things like gender dysphoria, I don't even use the term trans (not in a supportive way...I do not support trans). I use gender non-conforming or gender dysphoria (if that is more appropriate).
In a very limited set of circumstances, I think it may be reasonable to use a preferred pronoun for an individual who does not compel it, AND for an individual that is not confused about their true biological sex.
I just got a mental image of our government posting a budget deficit and calling it a surplus. And when called out, going on a rant on free speech and illiberalism: “I will call it whatever I want and if you don’t like it then you are a bigot!”
If you use the word “she” to describe someone, I presume that you are talking about a female. If you are knowingly talking about a male, then you are lying to me.
Changing the meaning of a word the way you see fit is not a free speech issue. And dressing it up as such is not going to help anyone.
Without wishing to diminish the heart searched thoughtfulness of this dialogical thread, I think analysis needs to go deeper, because not only does its architecture have many sub-floors and even deeper foundations, but the drivers of events are a product of dynamic historical forces that we only control to a quite limited extent.
We dance to the tune of history, not the other way round.
I am of the view that the conundrums in front of us are a result of the decay and decadence of 'mature' (late) 'consumer societies' (Indulgence Capitalism) that are beginning to unbundle as they enter a post-modern disaggregation phase. The post WW2 democratic consensus that the American empire and its older European power allies built, shaped and executed during the twentieth century is coming to an end. The cultural traditions that provided security, stability and some kind of bulwark against totalitarian tendencies, are disintegrating.
If that is anywhere near right, what we will be forced into is a journey not 'back' to fundamentals that we have lost, but fundamental visions of what we can become in order to completely recapitalize and rebuild our ecologically and existentially almost ruined world, with a view to creating social structures, values and practices that are as robustly bomb proof as we can make them, so that they can deliver reliably on all the bottom lines of what makes a society, culture and economic life worth living in, in what are just bound to be extremely difficult and dangerous times.
In short, we need to go back to the drawing board, because right now, nothing very much of a sustainable nature is happening, which means it is very likely to end very badly....and probably quite soon.
It is not that the discussion above is unimportant, but without fundamental analysis, the danger is that it rather floats around in the breeze of short termism, without the anchors and compasses of a deeper understanding of where we are and where we are going. That is a series of big packages which are going to need a lot of run up time before a really coherent leadership can form, that does have what it takes to be intelligent and creative agents of history.
That journey has hardly even begun, unless of course one counts the fairy dust narratives indulged in by The Woke, who are not just the agents of a fantasy filled Indulgent Ancien Regime, but one of its more ridiculously unsustainable products.
The far left tends to use the Kafka trap and Mott and Bailey fallacy to argue with people. The answer fragile movement sort of seems like an answer to the woke. But for companies money is why they will give up on the work movement. Companies like Disney are losing millions of subscribers. Colleges are also losing millions of students across the country.
This is a movement that contains some unlikely alliances like radical feminists and conservative religious groups agreeing on the need to safeguard children from trans ideology and protecting the fact of biological sex.
It is. And I would add that not only children, but women (biological women) need to be safeguarded from the dangers of radical gender ideology.
Thank you James you took the words right out of my mouth, I will go a bit further though, Julia is an awesome person, very few understand the risk she is taking as she will have people that are straight hate her and as well members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ will hate her for not towing the radical members line, reality is Julia has a friend in me for life as she has put her life and her families life at risk for even speaking on the points she does. If we all could just learn to be open and talk like Julia, Chanel and Catheine do is where we will find the solution to all the craziness our children have to deal with in their only time to be free of all societies weight.
Julia is fine. Chanel is being considerate.
Compelled speech is not an issue here. Let's not go overboard. This was all good.
As a life long follower of Darwinian theory, I have long held the belief that that the purpose of life is the preservation of the species and that sex, as it is in animals, is primarily for procreation not recreation. Transexual behavior is a corollary experienced by only 0.2 % of the Canadian populations and is not supportable by genetic evolution, yet its existence, as an unexplained phenomenon, perseveres in society. Certainly the conventions of inclusivity demand a measured accommodation of such an anomaly but not at the expense of societies most important institutions, our public schools.
For those who think that what Billboard Chris said is a problem, have you really listened closely to what Julia said in the first 10 seconds of the first clip? We can assume that the subject being described is identifying as a woman despite being biologically male. Here is what Julia said:
"And then over time, as I've been a bit more authentic with myself, I'm like,
yes, but - but it's not true. It's living a lie almost in a certain way. And I've
become more convinced that perpetuating that, not just - not just for other people even,
but for myself, isn't isn't helpful. "
Here is what Billboard Chris said:
"The ideology is what leads to children transitioning. When we uphold this lie, we’re active participants in promoting the ideology.
If he wants to help kids, he should embrace reality instead of making it about himself.”
Remove the names Julia and Billboard Chris. Where is the disconnect? What is the difference between saying "When we uphold this lie, we’re active participants in promoting the ideology" and what Julia said? Seriously, what's the difference?
Does using a person's transsexual pronouns uncompelled -whether we choose to dress that up as "liberal" or not- not contribute to the problem both Julia and Billboard Chris have alluded to?
Yes I believe it does, unless a very limited set of circumstances applies. One being that the use of the pronoun specifically not contribute to delusions - Julia does not think she is a woman. Julia also rejects gender ideology. I am simply open to the possibility that in certain situations the selective use of an uncompelled pronoun, if deployed where a clear rejection of gender ideology is agreed on by all parties, may not contribute to the (societal) problem, but may alleviate some of the suffering associated with an individual with legitimate gender dysphoria. But I am not convinced either way, that in such a circumstance, the use of the pronoun helps or hurts.
This essay is sophistry.
Words “she” and “he” are well defined in our language. The word "she" indicates that an individual belongs to a sexually dimorphic species and that this particular individual’s body has the potential to produce large gametes. Sexually dimorphism leads to different sexual behaviour of males and females due to the fundamental difference in the cost of sex. Therefore, knowing sex of a person is extremely important, which is why clear indicators of a person's sex exist in all languages.
If there is a characteristic that both women and Julia possess (and men sans Julia don’t) and if that characteristic requires a word to describe it, then Catherine and Chanel should have introduced that (new?) word and used it as they saw fit. As it is, Catherine and Chanel deliberately chose to mislead the audience by misusing the word “she”. And that has nothing to do with free speech.
No one involved with this essay, including Julia, thinks Julia is a woman, or is trying to convince anyone that Julia is a woman. However, even if this article was sophistry, which I don't think it is, it is still permitted to be freely spoken in a liberal society. Limitations on speech are only those things that can be said to incite hate or violence. The private choices people make to engage in what others may view as fantasy or sophistry, as long as they do not incite violence, is what liberalism protects. So I disagree, this article is about free speech - specifically the issue of compelled speech. Free speech is meant to extend to speech you do not like.
Like I have said to everyone who has pushed back. I don't think your position is unreasonable. The purpose of the video Julia made with Catherine and Chanel was to have a conversation with a trans person who holds a lot of reasonable views, that is, critical of gender ideology & trans activism. Julia also self-describes as classical liberal. Anyway, my limited experience with trans people has been with TRAs - who are awful and I do not support - However, I do believe that some people have real issues with things like gender dysphoria, I don't even use the term trans (not in a supportive way...I do not support trans). I use gender non-conforming or gender dysphoria (if that is more appropriate).
In a very limited set of circumstances, I think it may be reasonable to use a preferred pronoun for an individual who does not compel it, AND for an individual that is not confused about their true biological sex.
I just got a mental image of our government posting a budget deficit and calling it a surplus. And when called out, going on a rant on free speech and illiberalism: “I will call it whatever I want and if you don’t like it then you are a bigot!”
If you use the word “she” to describe someone, I presume that you are talking about a female. If you are knowingly talking about a male, then you are lying to me.
Changing the meaning of a word the way you see fit is not a free speech issue. And dressing it up as such is not going to help anyone.
Without wishing to diminish the heart searched thoughtfulness of this dialogical thread, I think analysis needs to go deeper, because not only does its architecture have many sub-floors and even deeper foundations, but the drivers of events are a product of dynamic historical forces that we only control to a quite limited extent.
We dance to the tune of history, not the other way round.
I am of the view that the conundrums in front of us are a result of the decay and decadence of 'mature' (late) 'consumer societies' (Indulgence Capitalism) that are beginning to unbundle as they enter a post-modern disaggregation phase. The post WW2 democratic consensus that the American empire and its older European power allies built, shaped and executed during the twentieth century is coming to an end. The cultural traditions that provided security, stability and some kind of bulwark against totalitarian tendencies, are disintegrating.
If that is anywhere near right, what we will be forced into is a journey not 'back' to fundamentals that we have lost, but fundamental visions of what we can become in order to completely recapitalize and rebuild our ecologically and existentially almost ruined world, with a view to creating social structures, values and practices that are as robustly bomb proof as we can make them, so that they can deliver reliably on all the bottom lines of what makes a society, culture and economic life worth living in, in what are just bound to be extremely difficult and dangerous times.
In short, we need to go back to the drawing board, because right now, nothing very much of a sustainable nature is happening, which means it is very likely to end very badly....and probably quite soon.
It is not that the discussion above is unimportant, but without fundamental analysis, the danger is that it rather floats around in the breeze of short termism, without the anchors and compasses of a deeper understanding of where we are and where we are going. That is a series of big packages which are going to need a lot of run up time before a really coherent leadership can form, that does have what it takes to be intelligent and creative agents of history.
That journey has hardly even begun, unless of course one counts the fairy dust narratives indulged in by The Woke, who are not just the agents of a fantasy filled Indulgent Ancien Regime, but one of its more ridiculously unsustainable products.
The far left tends to use the Kafka trap and Mott and Bailey fallacy to argue with people. The answer fragile movement sort of seems like an answer to the woke. But for companies money is why they will give up on the work movement. Companies like Disney are losing millions of subscribers. Colleges are also losing millions of students across the country.
https://unskool.substack.com/p/vacant-college-campuses-are-on-life