News

I’m learning about transgenderism from this transgender activist’s activism

13 Comments
J3551c4 Y4n1v
J3551c4 Y4n1v

Well, previously I had blogged about this transgender activist named Y4n1v who tried to force Canadian women to wax Y4n1v’s male genitals despite the fact that they only did waxes on women. There was something about the idea of forcing women to touch Y4n1v against their will that seemed like a great idea to Y4n1v. And now Y4n1v wants to force gynecologists to touch Y4n1v’s male genitals.

Here’s the latest from The Federalist:

Transgender Canadian and semi-professional complainer Jessica Y4n1v, who is a biological male, tweeted Monday that he was “shocked” to be turned away from a gynecologist.

[…]Y4n1v gained notoriety this past year for filing a complaint with the British Colombia Human Rights Tribunal against a group of home-based estheticians who refused to wax the complainant’s male genitalia. “The people that discriminated against me are forcing their beliefs on society,” Y4n1v said while representing himself before the tribunal, according to The Post Millennial.

Y4n1v says that it’s those people who are “forcing their beliefs on society”. They’re the fascists who are using government to force people who disagree with them to act against their worldview, beliefs and conscience.

Here are the latest Y4n1v tweets:

  • Gynaecologists form a part of the multidisciplinary team who engage with transgender and non‐binary patients, either as part of the transition stage performing surgery or managing pre‐ or post‐transition gynaecological problems.

  • The @cpsbc_ca [College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia] has confirmed to me that the refusal I’ve received is discrimination under the BC Human Rights Code and against their code of Ethics.

  • So @cpsbc_ca I’ll file a complaint with you today about that clinic. Trans people need to be included, not excluded from society. Pre and post gender affirming surgery care is super important!

And apparently, Canada is a very good place to do this sort of thing to women, because Canada is more secular and progressive and woke than the United States. In America, those nasty Christians want women to get married for life to a husband who loves them and gives them children and takes care of them. But in Canada, the secular left dominates, and they’re more concerned about transgender women using the government as a weapon to bully women to fondle Y4n1v’s genitals in order to avoid being arrested and put on trial and sent to jail.

Now, I know that all of our government-run institutions are trying their best to accommodate transgenderism. Heck, Obama even gave Bradley Manning a sex change at taxpayer expense, as a reward for betraying all our military secrets. Anything to help out his good friend Bradley Manning. So, I know that it’s coming here too.

So, this is what I find interesting about transgenderism, and it’s ideological precursor, same-sex marriage. When these things were presented to us, we were told that these things would not have any impact on our lives. It was just about living and letting others live. But now we know that Christians are being dragged into courts for refusing to celebrate this redefinition of marriage that destroys the aspect of complementary sexes – which is central to marriage. But it’s not just us. It’s the women on female sports teams who are being displaced by biological men. And it’s not just them. It’s the domestic violence victims in women’s shelters. And it’s not just them. It’s the prisoners in women’s prisons. And it’s not just them. It’s the girls in women’s bathrooms. And it’s not just them. It’s female waxing employees. And it’s not just them. Now it’s female gynecologists who need to be forced into sex work.

And keep in mind that radical feminists also want pro-life nurses and doctors to perform abortion. Surprise, again! The secular left in Canada and America are just as totalitarian and fascist as the secular left in North Korea, the USSR, or any other godless communist country. Atheism is incompatible with human rights, because you can’t rationally ground human rights in an accidental, materialist universe.

A lot of people pick on me because they think that I am not in favor of feminism, since I tell women what they must do in order to succeed at education, career, marriage, child-bearing, etc. by consulting research for best practices. But I would never ever allow women to be forced into sex work against their will. But, surprise! It turns out that it’s actually people on the left who really hate women.

News

Self-refuting statements defined and some common examples

10 Comments
A conflict of worldviews
A conflict of worldviews

A common thing that I see is people trying to wall off arguments they don’t like by stating a slogan, like “you shouldn’t push your moral rules on other people” or “that’s true for you, but not for me”. Those slogans are meant to get the person out of having to be reasonable about respecting moral obligations, or having to consider how the world really works when choosing what to do.

Here is a fine article by Aaron, who writes at Apologetics Junkie.

Excerpt:

A self-defeating (or self-refuting) statement is one that fails to meet its own standard. In other words, it is a statement that cannot live up to its own criteria. Imagine if I were to say,

I cannot speak a word in English.

You intuitively see a problem here. I told you in English that I cannot speak a word in English. This statement is self-refuting. It does not meet its own standard or criteria. It self-destructs.

The important thing to remember with self-defeating statements is that they are necessarily false. In other words, there is no possible way for them to be true. This is because they violate a very fundamental law of logic, the law of non-contradiction. This law states that A and non-A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. For example, it is not possible for God to exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense. This would violate the law of non-contradiction. So if I were to say, “God told me He doesn’t exist” you would see intuitively the obvious self-refuting nature of this statement.

Aaron goes on to explain how to deal with self-refuting statements in the article.

Here are 20 examples of self-refutation, just to encourage you to click through and read it:

1. There is no truth.

2. You can’t know truth.

3. No one has the truth.

4. All truth is relative.

5. It’s true for you but not for me.

6. There are no absolutes.

7. No one can know any truth about religion.

8. You can’t know anything for sure.

9. You should doubt everything.

10. Only science can give us truth.

11. You can only know truth through experience.

12. All truth depends on your perspective.

13. You shouldn’t judge.

14. You shouldn’t force your morality on people.

15. You should live and let live.

16. God doesn’t take sides.

17. You shouldn’t try to convert people.

18. That’s just your view.

19. You should be tolerant of all views.

20. It is arrogant to claim to have the truth.

Have you ever heard any of those? It’s amazing how often I hear statements like that when discussing interesting things like moral issues and politics with young people. The trick to being prepared to answer these is to learn lots of them. Then you recognize them when you hear them.

Add yours in the comments!

Polemics

Economist asks whether policies of white liberals will protect blacks from crime

2 Comments
Economist Walter Williams
Economist Walter Williams

So, I’ve been talking about famous black economist Thomas Sowell, who helped me to form my views on economics in so many areas. But there’s another black economist who is very famous. My Dad sent me an article by Walter Williams where he looks at crime statistics and race. This is something that affects my family, because we aren’t white. When it comes to crime, which policies work to protect us?

Here is the column, which was published on Daily Wire:

Let’s… turn to a recent article by Heather Mac Donald, who is a senior fellow at the New York-based Manhattan Institute. She is a contributing editor of City Journal, and a New York Times bestselling author. Her most recent article, “A Platform of Urban Decline,” which appeared in Manhattan Institute’s publication Eye On The News, addresses race and crime. She reveals government statistics you’ve never read before.

According to leftist rhetoric, whites pose a severe, if not mortal, threat to blacks. Mac Donald says that may have once been true, but it is no longer so today. To make her case, she uses the latest Bureau of Justice Statistics 2018 survey of criminal victimization. Mac Donald writes: “According to the study, there were 593,598 interracial violent victimizations (excluding homicide) between blacks and whites last year, including white-on-black and black-on-white attacks. Blacks committed 537,204 of those interracial felonies, or 90 percent, and whites committed 56,394 of them, or less than 10 percent. That ratio is becoming more skewed, despite the Democratic claim of Trump-inspired white violence. In 2012-13, blacks committed 85 percent of all interracial victimizations between blacks and whites; whites committed 15 percent. From 2015 to 2018, the total number of white victims and the incidence of white victimization have grown as well.”

There are other stark figures not talked about often. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting for 2018, of the homicide victims for whom race was known, 53.3% were black, 43.8% were white and 2.8% were of other races. In cases where the race of the offender was known, 54.9% were black, 42.4% were white, and 2.7% were of other races.

So, what are the policies proposed to protect blacks from being the victims of crime? Well, there are three.

  1. white liberals want to encourage black women to raise fatherless children by normalizing sex before marriage, and paying black women to have children outside of marriage.
  2. white liberals want to confiscate the weapons that law-abiding blacks use to defend themselves from criminals.
  3. white liberals want to deny blacks school choice, trapping them into failing schools so that they can’t get out of dangerous neighborhoods by rising in education, career and finance.

In another column from Townhall, Williams quotes Malcolm X, who had a low opinion of these policies:

Malcolm X said: “The worst enemy that the Negro have is this white man that runs around here drooling at the mouth professing to love Negros and calling himself a liberal, and it is following these white liberals that has perpetuated problems that Negros have. If the Negro wasn’t taken, tricked or deceived by the white liberal, then Negros would get together and solve our own problems. I only cite these things to show you that in America, the history of the white liberal has been nothing but a series of trickery designed to make Negros think that the white liberal was going to solve our problems. Our problems will never be solved by the white man.”

I think that blacks will do much better than they are now when they stop listening to the “compassion” of white liberals, and start looking at how they do living and working in a time of Republican policies. We have record low black unemployment now. It’s a curious sort of racism that believes in blacks to forge their own destinies, earning and choosing their way to success.

But some problems are not fixable with policies.

Williams notes:

The most devastating problems that black people face today have absolutely nothing to do with our history of slavery and discrimination. Chief among them is the breakdown of the black family, wherein 75 percent of blacks are born to single, often young, mothers. In some cities and neighborhoods, the percentage of out-of-wedlock births is over 80. Actually, “breakdown” is the wrong term; the black family doesn’t form in the first place. This is entirely new among blacks.

According to the 1938 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, that year only 11 percent of black children were born to unwed mothers. As late as 1950, female-headed households constituted only 18 percent of the black population. Today it’s close to 70 percent. In much earlier times, during the late 1800s, there were only slight differences between the black family structure and those of other ethnic groups. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households were two-parent households. Welfare has encouraged young women to have children out of wedlock. The social stigma once associated with unwed pregnancy is all but gone.

You can’t blame “the legacy of slavery” for the breakdown of the black family, because the black family was working great long after slavery was abolished.

So let me say something about myself and my marriage plan.

Because of my skin color, it would be natural for me to look to start a family with a black woman. According to marriage statistics, marriages where both spouses are the same color tend to succeed. But because of my Christian faith, I have to be a virgin myself, and I have to look for a virgin as a bride. But this standard is dead in the black community. Recreational sex with hot bad boys the rule, instead of choosing men who commit before sex. According to research, abstaining from sex before marriage is the best way to ensure that any children that are conceived in the marriage will grow up in a stable relationship with a father (me) in the home.

Unfortunately, white liberals don’t support me in these behaviors and plans. And black women agree with white liberals. They vote overwhelmingly for anti-marriage policies like promoting recreational sex in the schools, abortion, single mother welfare, no-fault divorce, redefining marriage to remove the requirement for complementary genders, etc.

According to exit polls, 98% of black women vote Democrat. They don’t do this by flipping a coin – they believe in Democrat policies. No marriage-minded man is going to be interested in entering a lifelong commitment with someone who supports anti-marriage policies.