Helen Joyce compares transgender dogmas to a cultish, hyper-intolerant religion

submitted by ceck from self.whatever

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLIZD3Yg-Nk

Skip ahead to 12:15 -- there is a special link below the video.

I am not very interested in transgender issues, but I am very interested in securing my freedom for intolerant dogmatists. I am more worried about Leninists, antifa, Muslims, and various Freudian dogmas than I am about Christianity. (But if the current left were ever defeated, I would certainly worry about Christianity openly adopting the tactics of the synagogue of Satan -- and even in today's world, I worry about those who call themselves Christians but are not.)

I don't call myself a Christian; I don't hold myself up as an exemplar of what Christians should aspire to. I am very much still working through my objections to Christianity. I am mostly worried about getting my own head straight (no pun intended) rather than berating miscellaneous perverts. But it has gotten to the point where ordinary young adults are encouraging me to read trans propaganda and I felt the need to look up some critics of trans stuff in case I get challenged. Thus, if the young lefties come to drag me into a struggle session, I can cite Helen Joyce as my first reference.

all 32 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]SoCo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Our food, clothing, houses, water, and air are flooded with hormone disrupting pollution. This makes emotional and sexual dysfunctions wide spread. Although it may mostly present its self as nearly-crippling depression and anxiety in the majority of the population, it also is noticeable in the unprecedentedly huge increase in LGBTQ, as well as the rampart uptick in cancers, type 1&2 diabetes, obesity, thyroid disorders, and many more long term damages that these pollution, such as "forever chemicals", DDT, RoudUp, BPA, phthalates, plastics, lotions, sunscreens, soaps, and many many other common everyday poisons in every product you own. Our FDA appears to me to be actively hiding these problems or at least slow-walking the cleanup. Look at BPA's for instance. We learned BPA was a hormone disruptor, then quickly that it was toxic and cancer causing in the 1930's. In the 1940's and 50's plastics using BPA were invented and they put it in everything, including food cans. The FDA is still reluctant to make serious efforts, despite being caught corruptly hiding the problem and colluding with industry insiders, stonewalling Congress, and refusing to do anything about it in 2007.

[–]Goingoutforawalk 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

So it's an atheist cultic belief system. Consider the extreme reaction and demands on everyone else to play pretend with them, that makes sense now.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I'm willing to bet it's more Jewish than atheist.

[–]Bridgeheadprod 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That’s an interesting way of thinking about it.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]LarrySwinger2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Well, not exactly. Woke is a materialist religion, that's why they're fundamentally discontent and why they take pride in being resentful, bitter and unforgiving. Those become the virtues when people stop expecting a better world than this one.

    [–]Goingoutforawalk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    What are the implications of materialistic belief systems now that quantum is acknowledged as base reality?

    [–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

    In my experience, there is indeed a hyper-intolerant and dogmatic cult of trans people - but not all (or even most) trans people belong to it.

    [–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

    It doesn't matter. The ideology is regressive and harmful. There is no gender separate from sex. The idea itself is regressive as it is based on the idea that gender is reduced to sexual stereotypes. That if you present as a gender you are that gender. Now it goes beyond that, that you merely have to claim that gender without presenting at all. And that is based on the idea that you can "feel" a gender opposite your sex. However, this is impossible. If you are a man, you can no more know what it feels like to be a woman, than a cat. You cannot feel what it's like to be anything you are not. If you wish to be something you are not, that is a mental issue. If you actually believe you are something you are not, that is a mental disorder. The idea that gender is different than sex is not some ancient notion. It's a relatively new idea, founded by John Money, a monster who abused children. The ideology is actively harmful to women. Placing men in women's prisons, in sports, even combat sports, in sex only spaces, forcing children to be shown pervert's genitals in changing rooms. It's a fucking horror show and anyone who promotes it or believes in it is complicit.

    You know rape centers have been defunded and shut down because trans activits want to be placed there, in rooms with female rape victims? Companies forcing people to use pronouns that are obviously not right. If some dude in a beard tells you they are a she and if you don't call them that you are fired? WTF type of society is that? I used to be live and let live, but this affects way too many people to be considered harmless.

    I know there are nice trans people that just want to be left alone and live how they want to live. That's fine but don't force the rest of society to fall in line with everything every trans person demands.

    [–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

    There is no gender separate from sex.

    This is a completely semantic question. It boils down to "what is meant by the word gender" and "what is meant by the word sex."

    I find it a little infuriating that partisans on both sides of the aisle insist that there is an "objective" answer to a semantic question. There is no Committee For What Words Mean. God did not hand us down a specific and precise language. Language evolves rapidly, and what a word means one year can be completely different from what it means the next year.

    Some people point at "The Dictionary" (as though there were one book called The Dictionary) and say - "There! That's what the word means!" They completely miss that dictionaries are books written by corporations trying to describe what people mean when they say words. No one agreed to put them in charge of anything, and all they're doing is frantically trying to respond to the way the usage of words is shifting.

    The idea that gender is different than sex is not some ancient notion.

    Of course it is. The word "gender" began its life about seven centuries ago as a very close synonym for "genre." Then it evolved into a word that meant "whether nouns are masculine or feminine in Romance languages." Then, for a very brief period, when Americans got too squeamish to put "sex" on forms, it was used as a synonym for "sex." And now it's drifting for a fourth (major) time. It's spent centuries as "not a synonym for sex" and only decades as "a synonym for sex."

    I know there are nice trans people that just want to be left alone and live how they want to live. That's fine but don't force the rest of society to fall in line with everything every trans person demands.

    And here, we agree. There are plenty of fully decent trans people in the world, and as for the most stringent activists, I do not like being bullied or language-policed. Freedom of speech is, ultimately, a critically important idea, and something that should mean something more than "Congress cannot punish speech."

    [–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

    That response is fucking insane. This is not a semantic issue. The ideologues are now saying gender = sex, like women is a protected class. The sex is protected. Now if you identify as a woman, you should be allowed to go to women's prison? Locker rooms? Sports teams? That is redefining a foundational word of the language, nothing like saying "oh, 'cap' used to mean a type of hat, but now it also means a lie". Get your head out of your ass. This shit is highly damaging and destructive to society.

    And you didn't even respond to my obviously true statements. You're just spouting some nonsense about the etymology of the word, as if that has any bearing on the destruction that this shit is causing. Who cares if the latin root is "genre"? It's being used now as a synonym for sex for all the ways that have a destructive effect on society, and it's doing the most illiberal things possible - attacking women.

    [–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

    It is literally a semantics issue. It is an argument over the definition of a word. That is what "semantics" means.

    There are two concepts. One is "does this person have a hole or a pole." The other is "What do we expect of people with holes versus poles. How do we expect them to dress, behave, etc."

    They're both real, and they aren't the same thing.

    It doesn't really fucking matter what we call them. We could call one oogy and the other boogy. I'm fine calling them sex and gender, because they're the most common words for the concepts, and that makes communication easier. But if you're triggered by calling those expectations "gender," fine, dude, I'm perfectly happy to use "boogy" with you.

    [–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

    Again you are completely dodging the real issue that trans ideology is trying to equate gender with sex and is causing real harm by doing so. Not to mention my point that the concept of gender as described does not hold up to rational scrutiny. You know it's wrong, but you can't bring yourself to go against your liberal tribal doctrine.

    [–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

    If you knew me at all, you'd know I'm really very anti-doctrine.

    But look at what you're saying - it doesn't really make sense. First you say "there is no gender separate from sex." You say that "The idea that gender is different than sex is a relatively new idea, founded by.. a monster."

    You say, basically, that sex is gender. Same thing.

    Now you're saying that "the ideologues are now saying gender = sex" and "the real issue [is] that trans ideology is trying to equate gender with sex." They're trying to say that gender is the same thing as sex.

    You're angrily accusing them... of holding your own position. Pretty weird, man.

    [–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

    I'll break it down in a way perhaps you can understand.

    There is no gender that is different than sex.

    Trans ideology started with the concept that gender is your feeling of what sex you are, or should be, potentially different than your physical sex. Then it moved the goalposts to saying the mantra "transwomen are women", which states that if someone's gender is woman, they should be treated as if their sex is female in all aspects of life. Any non-woman hating, rational person should vehemently disagree with that.

    I also disagree with trans ideology's first postulation, that you can "feel" like a different sex than what you are, simply because you cannot feel like anything you are not. You may believe you aren't in the correct body, aka dysphoria, but that is a mental issue, not a reality. No trans woman can ever know what it feels like to actually be a woman, or vice versa.

    [–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

    I think I see the problem. You think you're arguing against a very specific position. You think that trans people are an organized group, and they've created something called "trans ideology," and "trans ideology" takes specific stances on sex and gender, full of postulates and theorems and proofs, and that it's dogmatic, almost Scriptural, to them.

    But that's not true. Trans people argue with each other all the time over these issues. There really is no unified consensus.

    All that the vast majority of them really agree on is: "I want to be treated as the gender that doesn't match my biological sex. If I'm treated that way, I'll feel happy. If I'm not treated that way, I'll feel deeply uncomfortable."

    People are freaking the fuck out over that, and it gets pretty hysterial. You're basically saying it's going to do tremendous damage to women everywhere if someone born male says "my pronouns are she/her" and I say "okie dokie." And that's... not realistic.

    [–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

    The part agreed upon "I want to be treated as the gender that doesn't match my biological sex" has led to all the aforementioned insanity. That feeling cannot be enshrined as a right as it results in the destruction of women as a protected class.

    [–]LarrySwinger2 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    eyyyy ceck

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Kek

    [–]MagicMike 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    We just need to accept that all these perversions are genetic fuck ups. They are mutants and usually spiteful ones at that because they got fucked over by nature. No need to sterilize them because they rarely if ever reproduce; but their siblings should be checked genetically and neutered or spayed if necessary.