Alright, hbomberguy.
You seem to want a dialogue, in which we listen
to the other side and show willingness to
change our view if we are presented with new
evidence.
You want to talk, and seek the truth.
So, let’s talk.
If you don't remember what this is about,
this goes all the way back to April 2017,
when Bill Nye's new show on Netflix had an
episode dedicated to sex and gender.
The Skeptic community was seriously triggered
by this episode, and several youtubers made
videos decrying the fact that Bill Nye, the
science guy, has turned his back on science
in favor of SJW ideology.
Two months later came the response from the
SJW side, as hbomberguy – no, not that one,
the other one.
The one with the silly hair.
That's the one.
Hbomberguy, smug as usual, mocked some of
these videos.
I invited him to criticize the video that
I made on the subject, but got no response.
So now, hbomberguy, I am making a video especially
for you.
You wanted Armoured Skeptic to respond to
you.
Well, you didn't get Skeptic, but you are
getting me.
Hbomberguy's main point, and a warranted one,
is that the YouTube skeptics who attacked
Nye for his betrayal of science have presented
no science to back up their claims.
He made two videos on the subject, the first
dedicated to rebutting Armoured Skeptic, the
second aimed at several personalities who
are on the right-wing side of the Skeptic
community.
I am not going to defend the right-wingers,
because I disagree with them on this issue.
And I am not going to defend Armoured Skeptic's
video either, because Greg, once again, speaks
with authority about a subject he clearly
knows very little about.
But I am going to criticize what hbomberguy
has to say on this issue.
So, hbomberguy, you made two lengthy videos
explaining why the Skeptics are wrong on this
subject.
Please tell us why the SJWs are right.
Great!
So what are your insights?
Oh.
So you did all that reading, and you're not
going to share any of it with us?
Don't you think we could benefit from knowing
more about this topic?
Don't you think that if you made some arguments
of your own, we could then criticize them
and present counter-arguments, and as a result
we would all get more educated on this issue,
and develop more enlightened positions?
One with a mind less generous than mine might
think that you are just pretending to have
done all this reading, to feign superiority
over the people you are mocking.
But that is what you always do, isn't it,
hbomberguy?
You never bother to make any arguments that
would support the social justice position.
You just find bad videos made by anti-SJWs,
and ridicule them to score points in the culture
war.
Well, in that case, I am now going to make
a video directly at you, and explain to you
why those of us who have looked more closely
into the issue find it so troubling.
Now, I am not a scientist, but that doesn't
matter, because this argument is actually
not about science.
This argument takes place in my ballpark.
This is a philosophical argument.
I didn't watch Bill Nye's show at the time,
because I didn't have access to it.
But I watched it now, and I have to tell you
guys, I found absolutely nothing wrong with
the science on this episode.
I think it shows that hbomberguy is absolutely
right when he says that many YouTube Skeptics
are just parroting each other when it comes
to the issue of gender.
They know that there's something wrong with
the ideology that the Social Justice movement
is pushing, but they haven't really figured
out what it is yet.
So I'll try to help, and in the process, I
hope that I will also rehabilitate Nye's image
in the eyes of all those who felt that their
childhood hero has fallen.
To clarify, I'm not saying that there was
nothing wrong with Nye's show.
There was one segment that featured Rachel
Bloom wearing a leotard, dancing and rapping
– none of which I want to see ever again.
The lyrics to her song might have been considered
edgy and liberating thirty years ago, but
now just sounded lame and tasteless.
There was also an ice-cream orgy cartoon,
which I personally didn't have much of a problem
with, but Armoured Skeptic makes a fair criticism
when he points out that it makes LGBT people
look sexually promiscuous.
His point, by the way, was completely lost
on hbomberguy.
I assume that it is because he is a social
justice warrior, and therefore someone who
is busy fighting imaginary injustices, so
he doesn't know much about the injustices
of the real world, and doesn't understand
why it might be a bad idea to present LGBT
people as promiscuous, especially on American
television.
But those are not the parts that raised the
ire of the Skeptic community.
The part that pissed everybody off is the
part where Bill talks about certain aspects
of sex and sexuality, and claims that they
are all on a spectrum.
Bill discusses four aspects: sex, by which
he means biological sex; gender; attraction,
also known as sexual orientation; and expression,
by which he means gender expression.
And he contends that all four are on a spectrum.
Here is how Armoured Skeptic reacted to the
last one.
So this is where Greg opened himself up to
hbomberguy's very justified ridicule, as the
latter showed how easy it is to find scientific
studies that explore the connection between
biology and gender expression.
I think, however, that Greg's main problem
is that he is confused by the terms, and needs
them to be clarified first.
I actually already made a video explaining
them, and it just so happens that this video
was in response to the future Mrs. Skeptic,
who expressed similar confusion after Nye's
show.
So instead of doing it all again, I’ll just
use the relevant part of
that video.
Note what I said there.
Gender expression is a social construct, like
Armoured Skeptic claimed, but it is also partly
tied to our biology.
The funny thing is that by denying this, Greg
is actually taking the social justice position,
which claims that there is no connection between
biological sex and gender expression, whereas
hbomberguy, by debunking him, is taking the
anti-SJW position.
Again, I think it simply demonstrates the
general confusion among youtubers when discussing
this issue.
Now, Greg objects to Bill Nye's characterization
of these aspects as being on a spectrum.
He claims that those who don't fall into the
categories of male and female are very rare,
so describing it as a spectrum is misleading.
But Greg, those who fall within the categories
of male and female are also on the spectrum.
Every individual is different when it comes
to the masculine and feminine mix that constitutes
them.
When it comes to biological sex, for instance,
one man might have higher levels of testosterone
that another man, and that takes him more
towards the masculine end of the spectrum.
When it comes to gender expression, everyone
is different in the types of expressions that
signify gender.
And when it comes to attraction, some people
will be attracted only to feminine traits
and signifiers, like a slender figure, long
hair, boobs, soft skin etc.; other people
will be attracted only to masculine traits
and signifiers, like height, broad shoulders,
muscles, facial hair etc.; and some people
can be attracted to mainly feminine traits,
but also to height, so they like tall women;
or also to height and muscles; and so forth,
until they might find themselves attracted
to members of both genders.
In short, Bill Nye is absolutely right when
he says we are on a spectrum.
It's what science tells us, and it's what
everyday life tells us as well.
So what is the problem with the social justice
ideology on this issue?
The problem begins when we start to talk about
identity.
So let's get to the aspect that Bill calls
gender, and
the SJWs call gender identity.
So, what is gender identity?
It is how you identify yourself on the spectrum.
How do you identify yourself?
Is identity something that you are born with?
No, identity is not biological.
You are not born with an identity, you are
born with traits: biological traits, personality
traits, tastes, talents etc.
According to these traits, you are being placed,
and later on you place yourself, within preexisting
categories of identity that best define you.
Identity, then, is a social construct, which
individuals fit themselves into.
I was born with male biological components,
and typical male personality traits.
Society therefore tagged me with the gender
identity of male.
Later on in life, when I started to develop
my political views, I realized that these
views place me in the liberal category, so
I assumed the identity of a liberal.
As I developed my interests, I've realized
that I'm drawn to philosophy, so I assumed
the identity of a philosopher.
It is also possible that a group of people
will discover that they have a shared interest
that is not covered by an existing category,
and develop a new identity based on it.
But one thing in common to all of those identities
is: none of them exist in your biology.
They are all constructed socially, and you
adopt them.
Now, as we mentioned, we are all on a spectrum,
and no individual is exactly similar to the
other.
So the question becomes: how can many individuals
share the same identity?
The answer is that our everyday language is
flexible, and no term in it has a rigid definition.
Rather, it works on the principle known as
family resemblance.
In every category there are items that are
more typical to it, i.e. contain more of its
typical components, and items that are less
typical to it.
Thus, because our language is flexible in
that way, we can call them all by the same
name, give them the same identity.
In a liberal society, we espouse pluralism,
the ability of people to form new identities,
which anyone can then adopt.
However, there is one thing that should not
be the basis of an identity, and that is biological
traits.
In a liberal society, identity should always
be a choice, which we have the freedom to
either adopt or discard.
Since we cannot choose biological traits,
they must not be considered an identity.
Unfortunately, we have inherited some such
identities from our less liberal past, but
we need to learn how to overcome this past.
Race, for instance, should not be considered
an identity.
Race may exist as a biological category, but
should not exist as a social category.
Just like we do not treat having blonde hair
as an identity different from having black
hair, so should we not treat having yellow
skin as an identity different from having
black skin.
They should both be considered variants of
the same identity.
We have unfortunately inherited a world in
which race did become an identity, but a liberal
society should aspire to overcome that, and
erase these distinctions.
Similarly, sexual orientation should not be
considered an identity, but merely a matter
of taste.
Just like we don't consider people who drink
tea with sugar to have a different identity
from those who drink it without sugar, so
should we overcome the legacy of seeing people
who are attracted to the opposite gender as
having a different identity from those who
prefer the same gender.
Now when it comes to sex and gender, it is
slightly different.
Here, on a biological level, we are talking
about two differently functioning systems,
of male and female.
So the tradition that defines two biological
sexes makes sense, and is not something that
we need to overcome.
We must remember, however, that these two
identities cover a wide variety of instances,
and are not rigidly defined.
The science of today notes that some individuals
don't correspond to the dichotomy of xx and
xy.
Some, for instance, have xyy syndrome, and
there are other possible variations.
Science refers to these individuals as intersex
people, but as a society, we should not single
them out by assigning an identity to them.
They should be considered either an atypical
male or an atypical female, based on which
sex's components they have more of.
Gender, however, is based not just on biology
but also on psychology.
There is, of course, a strong correlation
between the two.
There are personalities, expressions and tastes
that typify those of the female biological
sex, and those that typify the male sex.
Traditionally, this led to a rather narrow
spectrum of behavior that was expected of
men and women, and those who fell outside
of this spectrum had to conform to it, and
felt strong alienation as a result.
But the liberal society has progressed and
realized the large variety that is out there,
and now allows men and women to express themselves
in any way they want.
There are even those whose psychology is so
atypical that it goes into the spectrum of
the opposite gender.
Some people have personalities and expressions
that are typical to members of the other biological
sex, and some even feel alienated to their
own biological body, and would rather have
the other sex's body.
Those are what we call trans-gendered people,
and liberal society has accepted that psychology
counts more than biology, so they should be
allowed to change their gender.
And, finally, there are those rare cases of
individuals who fall right in the middle,
who have about the same amount of masculine
and feminine components, either biologically
or psychologically.
Let's call them non-gendered.
For the non-gendered people, liberal society
should create another category.
We should be careful, however, not to define
this category as another gender, as an identity
with distinct characteristics.
This is something that you can find in some
illiberal societies, societies that have a
more rigid definition of male and female.
In these societies, those who fall outside
of these definitions are considered to have
a different nature, and are thus defined as
a third gender.
Again, this third gender usually has a strict
definition, and all members of it are expected
to conform and adopt the behaviors and social
roles it entails.
A liberal society should not stigmatize its
atypical members in such a way.
What I've described until now is what a liberal
society aspires to, what it considers to be
social justice.
But, as we know, the term social justice has
recently been coopted by anti-liberal forces,
which are using it as a cloak to further their
political agenda.
Their ideology is based on the Marxist idea
that society should not be regarded as a congregation
of free individuals, but as a battle between
oppressor and oppressed.
While liberal society was focused on identity,
making laws to protect minority identities,
the Marxists were fruitlessly trying to convince
the working class that it is oppressed.
Having failed at that, they rebranded themselves,
and leeched onto the concept of identity,
trying to convince certain identities that
they are oppressed in western liberal society.
They do it in all sorts of ways, but in this
video, we will focus on how they are handling
the so-called non-binary gender identities.
First, let's sum up the liberal position.
We know from science that there is a strong
correlation between biological sex, gender
identity and gender expression, but it is
not a one-to-one correlation.
There is a spectrum.
So, let's draw a graph.
This graph has absolutely no scientific validity,
it is just something that I drew to illustrate
the idea.
We will find that most individuals fall near
the peak of the curves, where we find those
whose gender identity and expression are typical
of their biological sex.
But some individuals' gender expressions are
atypical of their gender identity, and some
individuals' gender identity is typical of
the opposite biological sex.
All of these are accepted as valid in a liberal
society.
There are also those who are right in the
middle, which I termed non-gendered.
Liberal society would have accepted them by
now as well, if the SJWs didn't mess up the
works by trying to introduce a completely
different picture.
So what is the picture that the social justice
movement is trying to impose?
Well, first of all, they are exploiting the
fact that science says that there isn't a
perfect correlation between sex, gender and
expression, and twist it to deceive uninformed
people into thinking that there is no correlation
at all.
And, once they make them believe that gender
identity isn't correlated with biology, they
establish the idea that it is completely a
social construct.
And since it is a social construct, that means
that the normative feminine and masculine
behaviors are something that is forcefully
imposed on us.
In liberal logic, the normative is what most
people are by nature, and we know that there
are individuals whose nature is different,
but that doesn't mean that there is anything
wrong with them.
In SJW logic, the normative is a social construct
that is imposed on everyone, and therefore
a form of oppression.
Thus, the normative is evil, and needs to
be obliterated.
When you listen to young youtubers who fall
outside of the gender normative, and who are
influenced by social justice ideology, this
is always what you hear.
They never tell you that someone tried to
force them to conform to normative gender
expressions, they only complain that they
felt pressure to do so.
Well, pressure to conform is what human society
is about, and we all feel it.
The biggest fun of being a teenager is to
rebel against this pressure, and be an eyesore
to everyone.
But these kids are missing out on all this
fun, because their minds are being shaped
by this regressive ideology.
Social justice is victimizing these kids,
telling them that they are being oppressed
by the fact that there is something in existence
called normative behavior.
Thus, these kids develop a victim mentality,
and become miserable.
Now, if Bill Nye would have said that there
is no correlation at all between these aspects,
or that the spectrum isn't shaped like a curve
where there are typical and atypical instances,
then I would have had a problem with him.
But he didn't, so what's the problem?
Eventually I realized that what bothered Armoured
Skeptic, and other people, is that Bill didn't
bother to refute the picture presented by
the SJWs.
But you guys need to remember that this is
a show made by normies for normies, and most
normies have no idea about all this social
justice crap.
They are still in the earlier phase, where
they need to learn the difference between
sex and gender.
The show's producers tried to be hip and appeal
to today's culture, but they don't know enough
about it, as evidenced by the fact that they've
allowed this abomination to happen.
So if they didn't bother to debunk the SJW
ideology, I tend to believe that it is simply
because they are not aware of it.
I hope I've made my point that there was nothing
wrong with the science on Bill Nye's show.
So let's now leave the science behind, and
start to talk about the ideology of the social
justice movement.
As far as I know, nothing of what I am about
to present has any basis in science.
I tried to search for articles that support
the SJW arguments, and couldn't find any.
But I am not a scientist, so I could be wrong.
As I said in the beginning of the video, this
is meant to be a conversation.
If you have the science, you are welcome to
present it.
As we mentioned, the social justice ideologues
are preying on the minds of people who feel
alienated to the normative gender expressions,
teaching them that they are oppressed.
Instead of explaining to them that the categories
of male and female are wide and flexible enough
to include them, they are telling them that
they fall outside of these categories.
In their terms, they fall outside of the gender
binary, and that is why these kids refer to
themselves as non-binary people.
The non-binaries, in SJW ideology, are not
just those rare cases that fall right in the
middle - it's anyone who is atypical to their
gender.
And in the process of leading them to believe
in that, they are also instilling anti-liberal
ideas into their minds.
Let's listen to these so-called non-binary
people as they express themselves on YouTube,
and find out what these ideas are.
Did you catch the switch?
Up to the last sentence, there was nothing
wrong in what was said.
We are all slightly different, so we are all
on a different point on the spectrum.
But, in this ideology, we are not just different
instances of the same two genders, sharing
an identity according to the concept of family
resemblance.
No, no.
Every one of these instances is a different
gender, a different identity.
The concept of family resemblance, which every
human language has always been based on, is
being cast aside in the name of ideology.
Instead, we get the idea that every gender
identity should be rigidly defined, and if
there is a slight difference between the way
two individuals experience and express their
gender, that means that they are two different
gender identities.
The gender identity that defines those who
are on spot 2.9873 on the spectrum belongs
only to those who are at that spot, whereas
2.9874 is already a different gender identity.
And you can be sure that they are busy giving
names to those identities.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'ma let you finish,
but it's really hard for me to listen to you
guys.
I've watched many of these non-binary videos,
and every time they get to the part where
they enthusiastically introduce their gender,
there's this thing that keeps bouncing around
inside my head, and driving me crazy.
Hang on, let me just let it out first.
Yeah, this is who you guys remind me of.
Winnie the Pooh is a children's story, and
children are already expected to laugh and
understand how absurd it is for someone to
tell us how proud he is to be a member of
a wonderful category of beings, only to then
reveal that he is the only member of that
category.
But you don't find it absurd at all, do you?
For you it is perfectly logical to turn your
individual experience into a category, in
which you will be the only member.
What do you mean a place between?
We can't have that!
Better find a name for what you are right
away!
Oh right, I forgot, you have a name for the
in between state as well.
In short, this is an entirely new logic.
The traditional logic treats every term in
our language as a category that covers many
items.
These items are all slightly different from
one another, but they share a family resemblance,
so they can all be grouped under the same
name.
This new logic, however, sees every item as
a category of its own.
And based on this new logic, they want to
turn their own private psychology into a gender
identity.
The place where this new logic is allowed
to thrive is tumblr, and there are places
that list all the gender identities that dwell
there.
The last count that I saw listed over 320
genders, among them Glimragender – "a faintly
shining, wavering gender"; Abimegender – "a
gender which is profound, deep and infinite";
and Magigender – "a gender that is mostly
gender and the rest is something else".
Now why the hell should we accept this new
logic, and destroy the logic that has been
part of humankind since it learned to think?
Because their logic is not just something
by which we understand reality.
It actually represents reality.
So the claim is that while the binary definition
of male and female identities is a social
construct, the non-binary gender identities
actually exist in reality.
But, as we said before, identity is always
a social construct.
To show us that your identity actually represents
reality, you will have to show us that it
is part of your biology.
You will have to show that there's a part
of your brain that says "I am Boggender".
But there is no science that supports this
claim, although they will try
to tell you that there is.
No Riley.
As you said yourself, these articles merely
interviewed people who identify themselves
as non-binary, because they have adopted the
discourse of the social justice movement.
The articles provide no scientific support
to the claim that these identities are based
in biology.
Let me try to explain to you how you are being
deceived here, Riley.
No one has ever denied that there is a wide
spectrum of human experiences regarding gender.
In the past, however, those who fell outside
of the normative spectrum were regarded as
unnatural, as people who suffer from a problem
and need to be cured.
There are even some right-wing people who
think this way today.
But liberal society, based on scientific research,
has now determined that there is nothing unnatural
about these atypical people.
They simply represent the diversity of human
nature, and are perfectly well just the way
they are.
This is where our perception changed, and
this is what people like Bill Nye are trying
to teach those who have still not fully internalized
the change.
But then came the social justice movement,
and claimed that we should define these atypical
individuals as different gender identities.
And they have managed to convince you, and
others, that this is what the recent change
in our science and perception was about.
How does the social justice ideology reach
these people?
Well, it is mainly teachers in schools and
academies, who are using their position to
poison the minds of their students with this
anti-liberal, social justice dogma.
Young people are usually egocentric, and that's
a healthy thing because they need to focus
on developing their personality.
Eventually, however, they need to step out
of their egocentricity and adopt the identities
that society offers them, which best suit
them.
But instead of helping them in this process,
these SJW teachers are providing them with
a logic that allows them to maintain their
egocentricity, by creating an identity that
will be all their own.
They don't really care about what it might
do to the psyche of these vulnerable kids,
because it is all part of the ideological
battle.
But why is it so important to them to get
people to adopt new gender identities?
Because the liberal society has created laws
that protect minority identities, and the
social justice movement exploits that to try
to undermine this society.
It is considered wrong in our society to deny
someone's identity.
This principle was created to protect people
who were being denied the right to express
themselves in a certain way, to believe in
something, and to associate with each other,
on the basis of their identity.
None of these rights are being denied any
more in liberal society, so radical leftists
need to find new ways to portray it as oppressive.
By creating these new identities, and demanding
of us to recognize them, they can achieve
that goal.
And it works because as liberals, we cannot
accept these new identities.
If we add more gender identities to our language,
we will be labeling people against their will.
These kids may think that this identity that
they create belongs only to them, but that's
not how the human mind works.
The logic that turns every identity into a
category that includes several items is part
of our nature, and is not something that we
can avoid.
Our mind evolved to think in categories.
We need to be able to recognize that this
fruit that we never saw before is similar
to fruits that we did see before and belong
to the category apple, and therefore can be
nutritious; or that this animal that we never
saw before belongs to the category lion, so
we should run away from it.
So once you create an identity, it will inevitably
become a category.
If you create a new gender identity, people
with a psychology that is similar to yours
will be labeled with it, against their will.
And we will once again regress to a state
where we partition our society based on natural
traits.
As a liberal, I can't accept that.
Say we have someone who claims that their
gender feels like they are a ventriloquist's
dummy, so they call themselves Dummygender.
And say that others feel that that suits them,
and call themselves Dummygender as well.
So now you have a community, and they will
start creating customs to express their gender,
like, for instance, putting their hands into
each other's anus during sex.
Which means that after a while, anyone who
likes hands or fingers being put up their
anus will be called Dummy.
And they will also develop a dress code, based
on the usual ventriloquist dummy look, with
the short hair and the bowtie… in short,
something that looks like this.
Hmm?
What about it, Hbomberguy?
How would you feel if because you like to
dress like this, people will call you Dummy
and try to put their hands up your ass?
Is this really the kind of world you want
to live in?
At the heart of the social justice ideology
lies the belief that the nature of humans
is good, and if you let them live according
to their nature, they will create a utopian
society.
So the reason why society isn't utopian is
the contemporary social constructs, and if
we only bring down these social constructs,
like for instance the CIS-normative, Utopia
will prevail.
Therefore, all means are sacred to obtain
this goal, including messing with the minds
of youngsters who are confused about their
gender.
Those of us who aren't slaves to this ideology,
however, don't believe in this utopian nature
of Man.
We believe that humans evolved from the ape,
and like any other animal, they have natural
behaviors, some more typical than others.
So the normative is not a social construct
but the result of human nature, and no matter
how much you try you will never change this
fact.
The actions of the SJWs, then, are not leading
us to utopia, but what they are doing is partitioning
us, creating people who think along identitiarian
lines, focusing on what differentiates them
from others instead of what unites them.
This is one of the reasons why the social
justice movement, among its many other sins,
is also the main gateway to the alt-right.
For those reasons, I cannot possibly accept
these gender identities and the underlying
logic that comes with them, and must reject
them.
Which is why it is so important for the SJWs
to portray this as an identity thing.
In this way, they can present those who oppose
them as people who are oppressing minority
identities.
And so, the social justice movement deflects
the conversation from the real issue, which
is its undermining of liberal principles.
Does it end there?
Not by a long shot.
We have only scratched the surface.
As we recall, the social justice ideology
claims that there is no natural link between
biological sex, gender identity and gender
expression, and they are completely independent
from each other.
And that leads to other interesting implications.
Check out this chick, who goes by the name
Kara.
Kara is way ahead of any of us, and is absolutely
right.
If we accept SJW logic, then a man can just
declare himself to be a woman without changing
anything else, and we will have to accept
it.
So now she can walk into the ladies showers
and take a wash, and if you dare stand in
her way, you are a vile transphobic monster.
Well, the men among you might say, that sounds
like fun.
I would also like to identify as a woman sometimes,
and enjoy all the privileges that women have
in our society.
But, hang on, doesn't that mean that I'd then
have to identify as a woman all the time?
Fear not, my dudes!
The social justice movement has the solution.
Recently, the office of LGBTQ Student Life
at Harvard University released a guide, which
tells us that "gender is fluid and changing…
and can change from day to day."
Which means that you can identify as male
whenever you are in a situation that privileges
males, and as female when you are in a situation
that privileges females.
And if anyone tries to say anything about
it, accuse them of being transphobic, and
ruin their lives.
That does sound like a good time, doesn't
it?
But I don't think we can maintain a society
in this way.
Now what do they mean when they say that gender
is fluid?
They mean, of course, that our psychology
is fluid.
For instance, I identify as a YouTube Skeptic.
At times I am proud of this identity, and
at times you guys are an embarrassing lot.
So I fluctuate between being happy and comfortable
with this identity, and between feeling alienated
to it.
However, at all times I still maintain the
identity of a YouTube Skeptic.
In SJW logic, on the other hand, all those
different psychological modes are labeled
as different identities.
And so, this ideology, which pretends to want
to help people find their own identity, is
actually condemning them to forever be drifting
between gender identities, never feeling at
home in any of them.
Huh!
How bizarre!
A woman who likes to express herself differently
at different times, and yet is comfortable
with grouping all of these different expressions
under the label 'woman'.
In other words, like every other woman on
the planet, except for you poor deluded souls,
who put yourselves in the straightjackets
of labeling your own psychological modes as
identities.
You are so deep into this logic that you can't
see what damage it is doing to your wellbeing.
However, this total detachment of gender expression
from gender identity creates a snag.
If the non-binaries don't express their gender
identity, how can the world know that they
have a different gender?
And if it doesn't know, how can it oppress
them?
They have a label for that identity, but gender
identities don't usually come up in a conversation,
which means that people will only rarely get
a chance to deny them.
Say you define yourself as Juxera.
How can you give your juxeraness manifestation
in the real world, forcing society to deal
with it and oppress it?
Well, the social justice movement came up
with the solution.
It tells these kids that it's not enough that
you have your own private gender identity.
That gender identity must also have its own
pronouns.
And this is where it gets scary.
Because as long as it's just names, it doesn't
really harm the integrity of our language.
The logic of our language allows for people
to invent names and titles for themselves.
But when it gets to pronouns, the very structure
of the language will be changed.
Our language is based on the idea that there
are male pronouns, female pronouns, and gender
neutral pronouns.
If we allow this to change, and add pronouns
that imply more genders, we will be accepting
the regressive logic of the SJWs.
That is why it is important for SJWs to push
this through, so they are investing a lot
in making the non-binaries believe that a
grave injustice is being done to them, when
we refuse to use their pronouns.
Tigger please.
Pronouns are not part of you, they are something that you constructed.
Pronouns are part of language, and language
is a public thing, which belongs to all of
us and affects all of us.
So introducing new words into it is a matter
that concerns us all, and we have no obligation
to accept them.
Since these words actually represent a logic
that is alien to our language, we reject them.
They are also alien to our morality.
We want our language to represent enlightened,
liberal values, not regressive, identitarian
values.
Accepting your pronouns will be accepting
the idea that those who are slightly different
from others should be singled out and labeled.
That is the road to fascism.
I would like to make it clear that I totally
believe the non-binaries when they say that
they are suffering because of it.
They are not lying when they say that it pains
them when people don't refer to them by their
preferred pronouns.
But they are placing the blame on the wrong
culprit.
Instead of realizing that the problem is the
social justice ideology that is messing up
their psyche, they believe that society should
change for them.
Instead of being free and happy individuals,
they are constantly seeking validation from
other people, believing that they have no
existence without it.
All of that leads to a rather miserable existence.
Yeah, you know what that is, Caitlin?
That is what is known as being schizoid.
You have an inner world that is at odds with
your social identity, so whenever you are
reminded of the way society sees you, you
feel a sharp sense of alienation.
But this schizoid state is totally self-inflicted.
You bought the lie that our society defines
the two genders rigidly, in a way that excludes
you.
Once the SJWs made you accept this lie, they
made you adopt a logic that is contradictory
to our logic, and by this logic you believe
that your private psychology should be given
a label of its own.
But since your logic cannot coexist with ours,
you are doomed to always live in a world that
will not recognize this label.
Unless you break out of this mental cell you
put yourself in, you will always be alienated
and miserable.
Look, like I said at first, I do believe that
some people genuinely find it hard to define
themselves as either male or female, and I
support creating a category for them.
Adding one more category to represent the
exception does not contradict the logic of
our language, and does not contradict liberal
thought.
And what follows from that is that we should
also create one more pronoun, to refer to
people of that category.
You want to change our language to contain
he, she and ze?
Fine.
I will stand with you in this effort, and
I believe that we will not have much problem
getting society to accept it.
Droppen ze dead.
There is  no way that I will give my hand to the partitioning of our society according to SJW ideology.
I can't believe that you are so naïve, Hbomberguy,
that you don't understand what a profound
effect it will have on your life, as well
as the life of everyone else.
A society that labels anyone who is slightly
different, and categorizes them as a different
identity, is a society I don't want to live
in, and I suspect you don't either.
I would like you to explain to me how this
is harmless.
Now let's go back to our 21st century schizoid
andorgynes.
Until now, we have seen them mainly as victims
of the social justice ideology.
Not malicious people, but people who are confined
to live in
a world of their own.
So that's all they're saying.
They are saying that they are not cis, and
want us to validate them.
However, there is another type of not cis
people.
Let's call them neo-not-cis.
The neo-not-cis are not just begging us to
validate them, they aggressively demand it.
They are themselves SJWs, who believe that
they have the right to use all means necessary
to achieve their goals.
Thus, they become the foot soldiers of the
social justice movement.
And in some places, they even managed to pass
laws that give them protection.
Wait, I hear you saying.
I thought you told us that our society doesn't
accept their logic.
How come it passes laws based on it, then?
Well, that is because many people in our society
are passive regressives.
They are unaware of what's going on, and don't
realize that there is an attempt to undermine
liberal society.
They think that they are acting as good liberals
when they're passing these laws, not realizing
that they are actually serving the agenda
of the regressive left.
And so, we get bills like bill C-16 in Canada,
which makes gender identity protected as a
human rights issue.
The bill passed into law in June 2017, which
means that it might now become criminal in
Canada to refuse to use someone's personally
invented pronouns.
One man who realized the danger in this law
and tried to warn against it was Jordan Peterson,
a Professor of Psychology in the University
of Toronto.
Peterson became famous when he warned against
the implications of the bill, and announced
that he will not acquiesce to the demand to
use these pronouns.
In a debate that took place on Canadian TV
in October 2016, Peterson pretty much takes
the position that I've presented here.
He has no problem with people expressing themselves
however they want, he accepts that people
can have the opposite gender to their biological
sex, and he is willing to accept adding another
pronoun for those who fall in the middle between
the two genders.
What he objects to is the idea that anyone
can invent new genders and pronouns, and then
use the law to force us to recognize them.
For that, he gets accused of hate speech by
the regressive SJW gender studies scholar,
while at the same time dismissed by the passive
regressive professor of law, who says that
there is no chance that this law will be used
to accuse him of hate speech.
All of this has been widely discussed since,
but I want to focus on something else that
happened in this debate, and got less attention.
There is also a non-binary person on the show,
who is involved in this exchange.
Credit to the host: he caught the false equivalence,
of equating a situation of a language that
changed organically, to a situation in which
the will of an ideological minority is enforced
by law on everyone.
But he missed the bigger false equivalence.
The adoption of the word 'Ms.' came about
because we didn't want to distinguish between
people by labeling them.
What the SJWs are pushing for now is the exact
opposite of that.
The equivalence would be that now, after we've
learned to refer to all women as "Ms.", there
will be a small group of women who will demand
that we make a title for a woman in her twenties
who never married, for a woman in her thirties
who never married, for a woman in her forties
who never married, for a woman who was married
once, for a woman who was married twice, for
a woman who was married once and now has up
to three cats, for a woman who was marries
twice and now has more than three cats, and
so forth and so forth.
Now once these labels exist, they will of
course be used for everyone.
And should a woman complain about her marital
status being branded in a such way, she would
be charged with hate speech.
This is how the regressive left promotes its
agenda.
It pretends to be the extension of the liberal
struggles of the past, when in fact it is
the exact opposite.
As the bill was being discussed in the Canadian
Senate, there have been others who raised
an alarming voice.
Gad Saad, a professor of evolutionary psychology
in Concordia University, came to testify before
the Senate, only to find out that the passive
regressive senators are incapable of understanding
the problem.
Hahaha what a silly professor.
How can this bill be used for bad means.
Who could possibly think to try and prevent
ideas from being freely discussed and taught
in academia.
This is pure nonsense.
Well, to be fair to the Senator, for a long
time nothing happened.
From the moment the bill passed into law,
it took a full five months until we got the
first case of Professor Saad's fears coming
to fruition.
A teaching assistant named Lindsay Shepherd,
from the Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario,
had a discussion in her class about gender
pronouns, and showed part of the Jordan Peterson
debate we just saw.
When word of it got to the neo-not-cis on
campus, they filed a complaint, and Shepherd
was taken before the social justice inquisition.
And she had the good sense to record it all,
and expose the mechanism of how it's done.
What we hear on the tape are three people
who are demonizing Professor Peterson with
a string of lies.
They claim that he is alt-right, they compare
him to white supremacists, they portray him
as a conspiracy theorist, and they accuse
him of doxing trans students.
They did not come up with those lies themselves
– they have been made up in the social justice
sphere that they dwell in.
Once they establish his demonic image, they
claim that by merely presenting him in class,
Shepherd had created a threatening environment
for the transgendered students.
And, they say, Canadian law requires of the
university to not allow such things to go
on in class.
And so, this is where we are today.
I don't want you to worry too much.
This is just the latest attempt by the radical
left to bring down western democracy, and
it's going to be beaten back just like in
previous times.
The question is how many people will have
to suffer from it until it falls.
How many kids who are confused about their
gender identity will be forced into those
confining labels, and will be doomed to an
alienated, depressed and suicidal existence?
How many people who will speak up against
this madness will be accused of transphobia
and hate speech, and have their lives ruined
as a result?
How many people will be forced into silence,
into not expressing their views, because they'll
fear the backlash?
This is why we need to defeat this as soon
as possible.
Dear non-binary people, you are being duped.
You are being sacrificed on the altar of the
social justice ideology.
They are lying to you and telling you that
male and female are rigidly defined, so you
have no place within the binary.
They are lying to you and telling you that
biological sex and gender identity vary independently,
so that the CIS-normative is just a social
construct that is oppressing you.
They are lying to you and telling you that
you can invent your own gender identity, and
that makes it real.
And they are lying to you and telling you
that all of this ideological tripe is based
in science.
Their main goal is to present liberal society
as oppressive, and they are indoctrinating
you and using you as cannon fodder in this
battle.
If you don't break out of this indoctrination,
you will always be miserable.
And as for you, Hbomberguy, this monstrosity
is what you are veiling when you refuse to
present your side, and instead deflect to
discuss the inaccuracies made by those who
criticize it.
You are an intelligent guy, and this is what
you choose to do with your intelligence.
You defend the social justice ideology, an
ideology that is anti-freedom, anti-equality,
anti-diversity, anti-democracy, anti-logic,
anti-science, anti-truth, anti-beauty, anti-art,
anti-sex and anti-love, an ideology that presents
the biggest threat to social justice that
the West has seen in many decades.
You make fun of the people who oppose it,
without bothering to engage with the argument.
But you also expressed your wish that the
Skeptics would take your criticism to heart,
and maybe learn something.
Well, I accepted your challenge, and considered
your points.
This was my counter argument.
I await your response.
