Social media
tends to ban people who disagree with trans ideology.
Trans issues
For woke people,
discussion of sensitive issues to do with
sex
should be done in an atmosphere of hysteria,
where you are "cancelled" if you say the wrong thing.
Whether the topic is proof in sex abuse cases,
or age of consent laws,
or trans issues,
woke people believe it
should be discussed in an atmosphere of screaming hysteria
with a constant threat of a cancel mob against those with the wrong opinions.
More than any other issue,
it is trans issues that
woke people believe
should be discussed in an atmosphere of screaming hysteria.
Those who fail to have the correct opinions,
or even use the wrong pronouns,
should be censored, banned, sacked and prosecuted.
That is how woke people think we should discuss this issue.
I'm not kidding.
The issue is drowned in so much hysteria that
I tend to avoid this topic on Twitter.
I have enough enemies
without debating this toxic topic.
But here on my website, just once, let me say what I think.
There are two sexes, male (XY DNA) and female (XX DNA).
If you have XY DNA you are male.
If you have XX DNA you are female.
Tough luck.
You cannot change this.
Both sexes are great.
Their differences are something nice about humanity.
The two sexes complement each other.
Well ok, XY and XX only describes
99.9 percent
of all humans.
There is a
0.1 percent
who are different.
Most trans people are not in the 0.1 percent.
They are in the 99.9 percent.
"Trans women" are men, not women.
Trans women are men who feel like they are women.
That is fine, and they should be able to live their life. But they are not women.
Trans women, being men, should not be allowed into female-only spaces
like women's toilets or women's changing rooms or women's hospital wards
or women's prisons.
Women deserve and need female-only spaces away from men, especially when they are vulnerable or unclothed.
Men should be kept out.
Trans women should also not be in women's sports.
They are men, and have an unfair physical advantage.
They should be in men's sports,
or they could set up their own trans sports.
Straight men will not want to date trans women, because they do not want to date men.
I'm not just being mean.
This is what the numbers say.
Straight men do not want to date trans women.
This is fine.
Trans women can date the kind of people who are attracted to trans women.
"Trans men" are women, not men.
Likewise, trans men are women who feel like they are men.
That is fine, and they should be able to live their life. But they are not men.
Trans men, being women, probably should not be allowed into male-only spaces.
But men are likely to be more relaxed about this.
Females in their spaces are not a threat to them.
Trans men should also probably not be in men's sports.
Though it would be pointless for most of them to compete in men's sports, being women and at a physical disadvantage.
So it is a non issue.
Straight women will not want to date trans men, because they do not want to date women.
Again, I'm not being mean.
This is what the numbers say.
Straight women do not want to date trans men.
This is fine.
Trans men can date the kind of people who are attracted to trans men.
None of the above would have been remotely controversial at any time in human history before 2015.
My further thoughts
Pronouns:
There is no real solution to the pronouns issue.
Like almost every human in history,
I use pronouns that match biological sex.
Anything else implies that I believe in your belief system, but I do not.
I am an unbeliever in your belief system.
Not much we can do about this.
Just agree to disagree.
Misgendering:
No solution here either.
According to my belief system, saying men are women is the actual "misgendering".
According to your belief system, saying they are not women is "misgendering".
Not much we can do about this.
Just agree to disagree.
Deadnames:
I think it is alright to use new names for people, even weird new names.
We do it with artists and musicians all the time.
It is easier to refer to some hairy bloke
by the name everyone knows, even if it is female,
than by some obscure name he left behind 20 years ago.
I do not think using his female name implies anything.
It does not imply you think he is female.
So it is fine.
(Though should not be compelled speech.)
Transphobia:
Transphobia
is defined as "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against transgender people".
That sounds bad, but "discrimination" could mean anything.
It could mean just refusing to treat a "trans woman" as a woman.
In which case, the charge of "transphobia" lacks any bite.
It just means lack of belief in this religion.
How I (and 90 percent of humans) see the world.
Call us mad, but this is what we (90 percent of humans) believe.
Found here.
The alternative to my view above
is some alternative philosophical universe that remains unclear.
The big thing that remains unclear is summarised by the question: "What is a woman?"
No trans activist has ever answered that question.
I think they cannot.
Trans activists
confidently say: "Trans women are women".
But that statement has no meaning unless you can define what a "woman" is.
People say that trans rights are like gay rights in the 1970s.
That this is just a re-run of old arguments about tolerance.
But that is not true.
Gay rights only asked us to allow gay people live their lives in peace. It was easy.
Trans rights (at least as commonly phrased) require us to accept
a new philosophical model of the universe.
Matt Walsh asks "What is a woman?"
He will never get an answer.
Women at the Women's March
cannot define what a woman is.
Students (except one) cannot define what a woman is.
Lib Dem leader
Jo Swinson
is asked "What is a woman?"
and she cannot answer.
Labour Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities,
Anneliese Dodds,
is asked "What is a woman?"
and she cannot answer.
See transcript
of original interview.
Supreme Court nominee
Ketanji Brown Jackson
is asked "What is a woman?"
and she cannot answer.
Many people have noted the quasi-religious nature of trans claims,
the peer pressure to agree with them,
the lack of evidence given for them,
the lack of any calm debate about them,
the near-mystical redefinition of words,
and
the punishment of unbelievers, by banning or sacking or even prosecution.
Religion finds a way.
If humans do not believe in old religions,
they will believe in new ones.
Thread of Labour UK politicians, Sept 2021,
saying they all believe in the trans religion that was invented last Tuesday.
How did this happen?
It is amazing.
The ACLU in Feb 2021
has a quick catechism of some beliefs of the new religion,
which it absurdly calls "FACTS".
They are of course not facts at all, but just religious assertions.
For a religion that did not exist in 2010!
Atheists argue about the new religion
The new religion has hoovered up many atheists.
Some atheists believe in it.
Some do not.
Atheist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins
issued this tweet in Apr 2021.
He asked what is the difference between trans-gender people
and trans-racial people like Rachel Dolezal.
It is a good question and I have never seen it answered.
Dawkins' tweet angered atheists who believe in the new religion:
Some people say trans people are sincere and Rachel Dolezal is a fraud.
But it is obvious she is sincere too.
Some people say Dolezal is not in fact black,
while trans women are women.
I agree with the former,
but the latter needs proof, and that is the problem.
The evidence that trans women are women is the same
as the evidence Dolezal is black
(because they feel it).
So it is a good question.
If we can change gender, why can we not change race?
I have never seen an answer.
The
American Humanist Association
got angry with Dawkins
because of this tweet.
They do not believe in the old religions,
but they
believe in this new religion and its claims.
Like true believers, they did not even bother constructing an answer or an argument.
Instead they piously
withdrew an award
they made to Dawkins
because of this tweet.
In their version of humanism, you cannot even disagree with the new claims.
You are morally wrong if you disagree.
"The Friendly Atheist"
Hemant Mehta, Apr 2021,
attacks Richard Dawkins for the tweet above.
He declares it as a fact that trans-gender people are the other gender.
Mehta says:
"Trans people ... aren’t changing genders just for the hell of it.
... They don’t “choose to identify” as the other gender as if it’s some kind of light switch; they are the other gender.
...
Dawkins .. defines trans women as “men [who] choose to identify as women” (and vice versa) when that’s
not the case at all.
It’s not merely a question. There’s nothing to “discuss.”"
Is this bold claim:
"they are the other gender"
an actual fact?
What does it mean?
You might say Mehta is using a modern definition of
"gender",
which can be a feeling that you have in your head.
So he is saying:
"Those who feel like the other sex .. feel like the other sex",
which is true.
Everyone can agree!
But no, that is what Dawkins is saying.
Mehta is saying something much stronger:
"they are the other gender".
He is correcting Dawkins and claiming to be giving us a "fact".
Mehta's "fact", it seems to me, comes from the world of faith.
It is part of a catechism.
He is following a new religion that no one heard of before 2015.
Which is fine.
But why does he expect Dawkins to follow it?
It's like Mehta saying the eucharist
really is the body and blood of Christ,
and expecting Dawkins and all of us to agree.
The 1850 version of Hemant Mehta
explains to us that the eucharist
really is the body and blood of Christ.
That is how I feel when I am told that some chap with a penis and testicles
really is a woman.
It just feels like a religious declaration to me.
From p.215
of
the
Catechism of perseverance
(1850).
Since 2015, trans ideology has made it very clear that it is opposed to free speech and freedom of debate.
Across the West, people are censored, banned and even prosecuted for disagreeing with aspects of trans ideology.
I am not talking about hate speech.
I am talking about people who simply disagree with trans ideology.
Social media
tends to ban people who disagree with trans ideology.
Twitter suspensions.
Includes people banned for not believing in trans ideology.
Instagram
bans speech that disagrees with trans ideology.
TikTok
bans speech that disagrees with trans ideology.
Graham Linehan
was banned from Twitter for not believing in trans ideology.
"Heterosexual"
is (or should be) the word for
the sexual identity of
90 percent of all humans that ever lived.
Since this has been the norm since prehistory, there was no word for it until 1869.
So with "heterosexual" or "straight"
we finally have a word for my sexual identity, right?
Wrong.
With the rise of trans ideas,
"heterosexual" or "straight"
got redefined
in recent years as someone who might also be attracted to trans people.
(See the diagram above.
Posted here.)
This is not my identity at all,
or the identity of most humans.
So we need a new word, and one now exists.
"Super-Straight"
describes the sexual identity of
90 percent of all humans that ever lived.
This indicates a straight person who is not attracted to trans people.
Since this has been the norm since prehistory, there was no word for it until 2021.
The term "Super-Straight" was coined in February 2021.
People immediately got angry.
Social media platforms TikTok and Reddit banned use of the term.
Its Wikipedia article was deleted in March 2021.
It took mere weeks for the powerful to mobilise to suppress the term.
But a term is still needed for this sexual identity.
What other term is there?
2018 study
says only 3 percent of "straight" men would date a trans person.
So we have a term for the 100 percent, which is "straight".
We need a term for the 97 percent.
See numbers.
"Exclusionary" here means will not date a trans person.
97 percent of straight men will not.
98 percent of straight women will not.
It is mad that there is no term for these people.
Wikipedia
lists a vast number of
Sexual identities.
Wikipedia does not list
my sexual identity (the sexual identity of most humans).
Amazing.
